Shilo Willis was injured when the uninsured car in which she was a passenger was struck by another vehicle. Willis v. Swain, 2012 Haw. Ct. App. LEXIS 131 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2012). Willis was enrolled under a "certificate policy" which was provided under Hawaii's Joint Underwriting Plan (JUP) to drivers receiving public assistance benefits. Although the JUP certificate policy provided personal injury protection benefits and bodily injury coverage, Willis's certificate policy with First Insurance did not include uninsured motorist (UM) coverage.

   Willis sustained bodily injuries, received medical treatment, and incurred medical bills. Her claim was assigned to First Insurance pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. sec. 431:10C-408. The case had previously been before the Hawaii Supreme Court, which vacated the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of First Insurance. The Supreme Court determined that First Insurance was to pay appropriate beneifts under the assigned claim program. The Supreme Court did not address Willis's other claims, including a claim for bad faith.

   On remand, First Insurance paid benefits under the JUP assigned claims program and then moved for summary judgment with respect to the bad faith claim. The circuit court granted the motion, holding that as a matter of law there was no bad faith claim in the absence of a contract.

   The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the bad faith claim. In Simmons v. Puu, 105 Hawaii 112 (2004), the court had determined that a contract must underlie the tort of bad faith. Here, Willis did not have an insurance contract on which to rely, but constructed an argument that statutory provisions related to assigned claims under the JUP established First Insurance's duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court was not persuaded. Therefore, the claims for bad faith failed as a matter of law for lack of an underlying contract. The circuit court's final judgment was affirmed.

   Thanks to my Damon Key blogging colleague, Mark Murakami (www.hawaiioceanlaw.com) for the heads up on this case.