Arkansas Senate Bill SB351

Arkansas 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/1/23
• Refer: 3/1/23
• Failed: 5/1/23

Caption

To Create A Cause Of Action For Breach Of An Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing.

Impact

If enacted, SB351 would significantly modify existing Arkansas law related to insurance contracts. The bill would allow policyholders, or those assigned rights by them, to initiate tort actions against insurance companies for violations of this implied covenant. Successful suits can lead to the recovery of compensatory, consequential, and even punitive damages, provided the policyholder meets the established burden of proof. This potential for damages could encourage higher standards of conduct within the insurance industry, compelling companies to adhere to better practices when handling claims.

Summary

Senate Bill 351 proposes the establishment of a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the context of insurance contracts. This bill is designed to strengthen the legal rights of policyholders against insurers, allowing them to seek remedies when an insurer acts unfairly or fails to fulfill their contractual obligations. It defines the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an expectation that insurers will not hinder or delay the performance of insurance contracts and will not impair the rights of policyholders under these contracts. The legislation signifies an effort to enhance consumer protection within the insurance industry.

Contention

Despite its intentions to bolster consumer protections, there may be contention surrounding SB351 regarding the implications for the insurance industry. Opponents might argue that the expanded liability could lead to increased costs for insurance companies, potentially resulting in higher premiums for consumers. Additionally, insurers may see this as an overreach into their practices, creating an environment of uncertainty regarding their rights to defend against claims based on contractual interpretations. The balance between protecting consumer rights and maintaining a stable insurance market could become a focal point in discussions around this bill.