Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

CONTRACT 2 Claims and Elements I will give you detailed instructions of law later in these instructions. But I will now give you a statement of each claim in the case, and a statement of what has to be proved on each claim. Plaintiff claims that State Farm breached a contract. On this claim, Jerry Simms must prove there was a contract with State Farm and State Farm breached the contract.

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 1 of 10

CONTRACT 17 Measure of Direct Damages (Breach of Contract) If you find that State Farm is liable to Jerry Simms for breach of contract, you must then decide the full amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Jerry Simms for the damages proved by the evidence to have resulted naturally and directly from the breach of contract. The damages you award for breach of contract must be the amount of money that will place Jerry Simms in the position Jerry Simms would have been in if the contract had been performed. To determine those damages, you should consider the amount of payments that Jerry Simms would have received had the contract been performed.

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 2 of 10

BAD FAITH 1 (FIRST-PARTY) Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing There is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in every insurance policy. Jerry Simms claims that State Farm breached this duty. To prove that State Farm breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, Jerry Simms must prove: 1. State Farm intentionally denied the claim, failed to pay the claim or delayed payment of the claim without a reasonable basis for such action; [failed to pay the claim] [delayed payment of the claim] without a reasonable basis for such action; and 2. State Farm knew that it acted without a reasonable basis, or State Farm failed to perform an investigation or evaluation adequate to determine whether its action was supported by a reasonable basis.

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 3 of 10

BAD FAITH 2 (FIRST-PARTY) Adequacy of Investigation In all aspects of investigating or evaluating a claim, State Farm is required to give as much consideration to Jerry Simms' interests as it does to its own interests.

Source: Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 157, 726 P.2d 565, 573 (1986).

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 4 of 10

BAD FAITH 3 (FIRST-PARTY) Definition of Intentional1

To prove that State Farm acted intentionally [on the bad faith claim], Jerry Simms must prove that State Farm intended its conduct, but Jerry Simms does not need to prove that State Farm intended to cause injury. State Farm's conduct is not intentional if it is inadvertent or due to a good faith mistake.

Source: Zilisch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 196 Ariz. 234, 995 P.2d 276 (2000); Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 160, 726 P.2d 565, 576 (1986); Rowland v. Great States Ins. Co., 199 Ariz. 577, 20 P.3d 1158 (Ct. App. 2001); Deese v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 168 Ariz. 337, 813 P.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1991).

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 5 of 10

BAD FAITH 4 (FIRST-PARTY) Causation Before you can find State Farm liable [on the bad faith claim], you must find that State Farm's breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing was a cause of Jerry Simms' damages. A breach of duty is a cause of damages if it helps produce the damages, and if the damages would not have occurred without the breach.

Source: RAJI (Civil) 3d Bad Faith 4; RAJI (Civil) 4th Fault 2.

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 6 of 10

BAD FAITH 5 (FIRST-PARTY) Plaintiff's Burden of Proof (Bad Faith) [On the bad faith claim,] Jerry Simms must prove: 1. 2. 3. State Farm breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing; State Farm's breach was a cause of Jerry Simms' damages; and The amount of Jerry Simms' damages.

Source: Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 153, 726 P.2d 565, 569 (1986).

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 7 of 10

BAD FAITH 6 (FIRST-PARTY) Statement of Liability Issues

If you find that State Farm did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing, then your verdict [on the bad faith claim] must be for State Farm, even if you find that State Farm incorrectly denied, failed to pay, or delayed payment of Jerry Simms claims for benefits. If you find that State Farm did breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing and that State Farm's breach was a cause of Jerry Simms' damages, then your verdict [on the bad faith claim] must be for Jerry Simms, even if you find that State Farm correctly denied, failed to pay or delayed payment of Jerry Simms' claim for benefits.

Source: RAJI (Civil) 4th Fault 4; Zilisch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 196 Ariz. 234, 995 P.2d 276 (2000); Deese v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 172 Ariz. 504, 838 P.2d 1265 (1992); Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 157, 726 P.2d 565, 573 (1986).

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 8 of 10

BAD FAITH 7 (FIRST-PARTY) Measure of Damages If you find that State Farm is liable to Jerry Simms [on the bad faith claim], you must then decide the full amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Jerry Simms for each of the following elements of damage proved by the evidence to have resulted from State Farm's breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing: 1. The unpaid benefits of the policy;

2. Emotional distress, humiliation, inconvenience, and anxiety experienced, and reasonably probable to be experienced in the future.

Source: Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 153, 726 P.2d 565, 569 (1986); Farr v. Transamerica Occidental Life Ins. Co., 145 Ariz. 1, 7, 699 P.2d 376, 382 (Ct. App. 1984).

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 9 of 10

PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES 4 Punitive Damages If you find State Farm liable to Jerry Simms, you may consider assessing additional damages to punish State Farm or to deter State Farm and others from similar misconduct in the future. Such damages are called "punitive" or "exemplary" damages. To recover such damages, Jerry Simms has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that State Farm acted with an evil mind. This required state of mind may be shown by any of the following: 1. 2. Intent to cause injury; or Wrongful conduct motivated by spite or ill will; or

3. State Farm acted to serve its own interests, having reason to know and consciously disregarding a substantial risk that its conduct might significantly injure the rights of others.

To prove this required state of mind by clear and convincing evidence, Jerry Simms must persuade you that the punitive damages claim is highly probable. This burden of proof is more demanding than the standard of more probably true than not true, which applies to all other claims in this case, but it is less demanding than the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used in criminal cases. The law provides no fixed standard for the amount of punitive damages you may assess, if any, but leaves the amount to your discretion. However, if you assess punitive damages, you may consider the character of State Farm's conduct or motive, the nature and extent of the harm to plaintiff that State Farm's caused, and the nature and extent of defendant's financial wealth.

Source: Volz v. Coleman Co., Inc., 155 Ariz. 567, 748 P.2d 1191 (1987); Gurule v. Illinois Mut. Life & Cas. Co., 152 Ariz. 600, 734 P.2d 85 (1987); Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 733 P.2d 1073 (1987); Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149, 726 P.2d 565 (1986); Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 723 P.2d 675 (1986); Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 157 Ariz. 411, 758 P.2d 1313 (Ct. App. 1988).

Case 2:03-cv-01415-ROS

Document 179-2

Filed 06/26/2006

Page 10 of 10