Background
R&D Towing, Inc. (RDT) purchased a 2001 Peterbilt truck for $185,000 in April 2015. In September 2017, RDT obtained a commercial auto insurance policy from United Financial Casualty Company listing the Peterbilt for $185,000. On February 26, 2018, the vehicle was vandalized while parked in RDT’s garage, sustaining extensive damage including sliced tires, destroyed electronic controls, and compromised engine components.
RDT’s president, Ronald Cook, submitted a claim on February 26, 2018. However, Cook came under investigation for insurance fraud related to the incident. On March 5, 2018, Cook withdrew the claim, which United closed the following day. A criminal complaint was filed against Cook on March 30, 2018, alleging insurance fraud and falsely reporting an emergency. After those charges were dismissed without prejudice on October 25, 2019, RDT’s counsel requested to reopen the claim on December 17, 2019.
Upon reopening, United assigned the claim to a new representative and made numerous attempts to contact RDT’s counsel and obtain necessary documentation. RDT did not provide the required claim information—including a bill of sale with detailed vehicle description—until January 5, 2021, nearly a year after filing suit. The parties eventually settled, and United paid the full $185,000 policy value.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for United, holding that RDT failed to establish a viable claim under West Virginia’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) or common law bad faith. Applying West Virginia Code § 33-11-4(9), the court emphasized that an UTPA claim requires proof that an insurer violated the statute “with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice”—a single isolated violation is insufficient. The court found RDT produced no evidence of any violation, let alone a pattern of violations.
The court rejected RDT’s argument that United delayed claim processing. Instead, it found that RDT’s own conduct caused the delay: United made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact RDT’s counsel and obtain necessary information, while RDT withheld critical documentation for nearly a year. The court also rejected RDT’s contention that the UTPA imposed a thirty-day settlement deadline, finding no such requirement in the statute or regulations. The court further noted that Tri-County lacked standing to pursue the claims.
The court also criticized the appellate brief for presenting skeletal arguments without meaningful analysis, proper citations to authority, or reference to the record, finding these deficiencies insufficient to carry RDT’s burden of demonstrating reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia’s UTPA protection against unfair claim settlement practices requires proof of a pattern of violations indicating a general business practice, not isolated incidents
- An insured’s own delay in providing requested claim documentation can defeat a bad faith claim for delayed claim processing
- The UTPA does not impose a statutory thirty-day settlement requirement
- Appellate briefs must contain substantive analysis with specific citations to authority and the record; conclusory arguments will not preserve claims for review
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the demanding threshold for UTPA unfair claim practices claims in West Virginia, requiring insureds to demonstrate a pattern of misconduct rather than relying on isolated disputes. For claimants, the decision underscores the importance of timely cooperation with insurers and prompt submission of requested documentation; failure to do so can undermine otherwise viable bad faith arguments. For insurers, the decision validates reasonable investigation efforts and multiple contact attempts as consistent with statutory obligations, even when documentation is delayed.
The decision also reinforces procedural standards for appellate practice, with the court expressing concern about counsel’s repeated failure to comply with briefing requirements—including a footnote noting that counsel had previously been reminded of these requirements in a separate appeal. This serves as a cautionary note regarding the importance of substantive appellate advocacy and proper record citation.