Following the jurisprudence set forth by the Hawaii Supreme Court, the Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rejection of the insured's claim for bad faith. Stewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Co., 2012 Haw. Ct. App. LEXIS 148 (Haw. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2012).

   The ICA agreed with the insured that the trial court had improperly determined that a bad faith claim can arise only if the insurer owed the insured a duty to pay and the insurer delayed or denied payment. The trial court's reasoning departed from the Supreme Court's decision in Best Place, Inc. v. Penn Am. Ins. Co., 82 Haw. 120, 133, 920 P.2d 334, 347 (1996). The Supreme Court previously held that, under some circumstances, an insured may pursue a bad faith claim even where there is no coverage under the policy.

   Nevertheless, the end result in dismissing the bad faith claim was correct. The insured alleged that the insurer failed to promptly and thoroughly investigate his claim before consenting to his settlement with the other driver's insurer. The insured, however, never complained about the insurer's pre-settlement investigation. The undisputed facts demonstrated that the insurer requested information from the insured regarding his injuries and his lost wages, performed an asset check of the other driver and had an adjuster speak with the other driver's carrier to ascertain that he had few assets to satisfy a potential judgment. This pre-settlement investigation fit the guidelines for UIM investigations established by the Hawaii Supreme Court.

   Therefore, the insured failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact to establish that the insurer committed bad faith in the handling or investigation of the UIM claim. Consequently, the trial court properly granted summary judgment.

   Thanks to Keith K. Hiraoka, counsel for the insurer, for forwarding this case to me.