Insurer's Conduct on Appeal of Dispute Is Relevant to Issue of Whether Insurer Engaged in Unfair Claims Practices
蒙大拿州最高法院审理了一起涉及租赁设备火灾损失的保险纠纷，判定保险公司在诉讼中的行为可作为其是否构成不公平理赔实践的证据。
Federated Mutual Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 991 P.2d 915 (Montana Supreme Court--November 23, 1999) In 1991, Conifer Logging leased logging equipment from Jones Equipment with a one-week free trial period. During that trial period, risk of loss remained with Jones. After that week, risk of loss was on Conifer. The lease began on June 24, but Conifer immediately thereafter noticed problems with equipment and decided to terminate lease. On July 16, Conifer and Jones arranged for return of equipment. Sure enough, on July 17, equipment was destroyed by fire at Conifer's logging site. So began ten years of litigation over matter. After fire, Conifer notified its insurer, John Deere, which insured Conifer under a contractor's inland marine policy with a acquired provision giving automatic coverage to new equipment taken in by Conifer, provided that Conifer notified Deere and paid additional premiums required by increased value of policy's insured equipment. Federated Mutual was insurer for Jones's equipment. Federated paid Jones for loss of Jones's property (Remember, equipment was rejected by Conifer and was scheduled to be returned. It was thus part of Jones's inventory even though still in custody of Conifer.) Federated then made a claim against Conifer for indemnification since property had been destroyed while in custody of Conifer. Conifer, in turn, asked its insurer, John Deere, to provide coverage if Federated claim was successful. Deere denied coverage, contending that Conifer had not given it timely notice of newly acquired property. The dispute reached Montana Supreme Court in 1996, with court holding that the uncontroverted facts establish that [equipment] was delivered on June 17, 1991 but that because of one-week free trial period, Conifer did not acquire equipment pursuant to newly acquired equipment provision of its lease with John Deere until June 24, 1991. Consequently, equipment was covered under John Deere policy at time of July 17, 1991, fire, and Conifer's mid-July notice to Deere had been timely. In deciding case, Montana Supreme Court also concluded that John Deere's appeal was without merit and assessed Fed. R. App. P. 32 sanctions against Deere for bringing a frivolous appeal. The case continued at trial level, with Conifer adding a claim against Deere for unfair practices under Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Conifer asserted that both before and during litigation, Deere had taken unreasonable positions on coverage, forcing Conifer to bear costs in seeking its rights under insurance policy. …