The Policyholder’s Playbook: A Trial Lawyer’s Guide to Suing an Insurance Company

Introduction: The Broken Promise

An insurance policy is more than a commercial product; it is sold and purchased as a promise of security and protection.¹

Individuals and businesses faithfully pay premiums, often for years, with the expectation that if misfortune strikes—a catastrophic fire, a debilitating injury, the loss of a loved one—the insurance company will honor its commitment.²

This is the fundamental bargain: policyholders pay for peace of mind, trusting that their insurer will be there to help them rebuild in a time of dire need.¹

Yet, for too many, this promise is broken at the moment it is needed most.

The company paid to provide protection becomes an adversary.⁴

A legitimate claim, filed in good faith by a policyholder reeling from a loss, is met with a wall of delays, inexplicable denials, and bewildering tactics.

The policyholder, already in a vulnerable state, finds themselves in an unexpected battle against a corporate giant with vast resources and “teams of well-paid attorneys” whose sole function is to minimize or eliminate the very payout for which the policy was purchased.³

This report is a playbook for that battle.

It is a trial lawyer’s guide to understanding, confronting, and defeating insurance company bad faith.

It will deconstruct the legal principles that govern these disputes, expose the economic motives and strategic tactics of the insurance industry, and provide a step-by-step framework for holding insurers accountable.

The fight against a bad faith insurer is a formidable challenge, but it is not an unwinnable one.

Armed with knowledge, evidence, and the power of the law, a policyholder can level the playing field and force an insurer to honor its most sacred obligation: the promise to pay.

Part I: The Battlefield – Understanding the Terrain of an Insurance Dispute

Mounting a successful challenge against an insurance company requires a firm grasp of the legal terrain.

The rights and duties of both the policyholder and the insurer are not confined to the written text of the policy.

They are governed by a set of powerful legal principles that have evolved over decades to ensure fairness in a relationship defined by a fundamental power imbalance.

Understanding these principles is the first step toward reclaiming power.

1.1 The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: An Unwritten Vow

At the heart of every insurance policy lies a crucial, unwritten obligation known as the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”.⁷

This covenant is not a clause you can find in the fine print; it is a duty imposed by law that automatically exists in every insurance contract.⁷

It mandates that an insurance company must act honestly and fairly when handling a policyholder’s claim, giving the insured’s interests at least as much consideration as its own financial interests.¹

This legal doctrine is the bedrock of insurance law and has been recognized by courts for generations.

The Ohio Supreme Court, for example, affirmed this duty as early as 1949, establishing that an insurer owes a duty of good faith to its insured in the processing, payment, and settlement of claims.⁷

This fundamental duty applies universally across all types of insurance, whether it is an auto, homeowner’s, life, health, or disability policy.¹⁰

It requires the insurer to perform its obligations diligently, which includes conducting a prompt and full investigation of a claim, fairly evaluating the findings, and paying or denying the claim in a timely manner without unreasonable delay.¹

When an insurer violates this covenant, it has not just failed to meet a contractual term; it has breached a fundamental legal duty.

1.2 When the Promise is Broken: Defining Insurance Bad Faith

Insurance bad faith occurs when an insurer breaches the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

It is more than a simple disagreement over the value of a claim or an honest mistake in processing paperwork.

Authoritative legal sources, such as Black’s Law Dictionary, define bad faith as an insurer’s “unreasonable and unfounded…

refusal to provide coverage”.¹³

It involves a “dishonest purpose” and a “breach of a known duty” that is prompted not by an honest mistake, but by some “interested or sinister motive”.¹⁴

To prove bad faith, a policyholder generally must show two things: (1) that the insurer had no reasonable basis for denying or delaying the policy benefits, and (2) that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that it had no reasonable basis for its actions.¹²

This leads to the most critical legal concept in these disputes: the distinction between a breach of contract and the tort of bad faith.

• Breach of Contract: A breach of contract claim is a straightforward allegation that the insurance company failed to pay benefits that were owed under the explicit terms of the policy.¹⁶ If successful, the remedies are typically limited to the value of the unpaid benefits, sometimes with interest. The focus is on the financial obligation.
• The Tort of Bad Faith: A bad faith claim is a separate and more serious legal wrong, known in the law as a “tort”.⁷ This claim does not focus on the failure to pay, but on the
  unreasonable and dishonest conduct of the insurer in the process of denying the claim.¹⁶ The distinction is legally “significant because as a matter of public policy, punitive or exemplary damages are unavailable for contract claims, but are available for bad faith claims”.⁷

The ability to bring a lawsuit for the tort of bad faith is the policyholder’s ultimate weapon.

It fundamentally changes the nature of the litigation.

Without it, an insurer’s worst-case scenario for wrongfully denying a claim is eventually being forced by a court to pay what it should have paid in the first place.¹⁹

For a multi-billion-dollar corporation, this is merely a cost of doing business, creating no real disincentive to deny valid claims.

The tort of bad faith, however, introduces the threat of punitive damages—substantial monetary awards designed not to compensate the victim but to punish the wrongdoer and deter future misconduct.³

This threat is the great equalizer, creating a powerful financial reason for the insurer to treat its policyholders fairly and transforming the dispute from a simple argument over money into a legal and moral indictment of the company’s behavior.

1.3 The Two Fronts of Bad Faith: First-Party vs. Third-Party Claims

Bad faith claims arise in two primary contexts, and it is crucial to understand the difference, as the legal strategy for each is distinct.¹⁰

First-Party Bad Faith

A first-party claim is a direct dispute between a policyholder and their own insurance company.²

The policyholder is the “first party,” and the insurer is the second party to the contract.

• Common Examples:

• Your homeowner’s insurer unreasonably denies your claim after a fire, perhaps by alleging arson without credible evidence.²
• Your long-term disability carrier terminates your benefits, claiming you are no longer disabled despite evidence from your doctors.¹¹
• Your health insurer refuses to cover a medically necessary procedure, calling it “experimental”.²¹
• Your own auto insurer unreasonably denies or delays payment on your uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claim after you are hit by a driver with little or no insurance.¹⁰
• How to Prove It: In a first-party case, the policyholder must prove that benefits rightfully owed under the policy were denied, delayed, or underpaid, and that the insurer’s actions in doing so were unreasonable, arbitrary, or without proper cause.¹⁰

Third-Party Bad Faith

A third-party claim is more complex.

It arises from a liability policy, where your insurer has a duty to defend you and pay for damages you may have caused to someone else (the “third party”).²

In this scenario, the insurer’s primary duty of good faith is owed to

you, its policyholder, not directly to the injured third party.⁷

However, the insurer’s bad faith actions toward you can have a devastating impact on the third party’s ability to be compensated.

• Common Examples:

• Failure to Settle: You cause a car accident, and the injured party (the third party) offers to settle their claim against you for an amount that is within your policy’s liability limits. Your insurer, despite recognizing a substantial risk of a higher verdict at trial, unreasonably refuses to accept this reasonable offer. The case goes to trial, and the jury awards the injured party a judgment that far exceeds your policy limit (an “excess judgment”), exposing you to personal financial ruin.¹⁰
• Failure to Defend: A third party sues you for a claim that is potentially covered under your liability policy. Your insurer, however, wrongfully refuses to provide you with a legal defense, forcing you to pay for your own lawyers or face a default judgment.²
• How a Third Party Can Sue: Since the insurer’s duty is to its own policyholder, the third party cannot directly sue the insurer for bad faith. However, a powerful legal mechanism exists. After the third party obtains an excess judgment against the policyholder, the policyholder—who is now personally liable for a massive debt because of the insurer’s bad faith—can “assign” their bad faith claim against the insurer to the third party.¹⁰ This assignment allows the third party to step into the policyholder’s shoes and sue the insurance company directly to recover the full amount of the excess judgment. This strategic maneuver turns the insurer’s breach of loyalty to its own client into a weapon that can be used against it by the very person that client injured.

Part II: The Adversary – Deconstructing the Insurance Company’s Playbook

An insurer’s decision to deny a valid claim is rarely a random act of incompetence.

More often, it is the calculated result of a business model and corporate culture that prioritizes profits over policyholders.

To effectively fight back, one must first understand the adversary’s motivations, strategies, and the psychological framework within which its agents operate.

These actions are not a bug in the system; they are a feature.

2.1 The Profit Motive: Why Good People Work for Companies That Do Bad Things

Insurance companies are publicly traded, for-profit corporations.

Their primary fiduciary duty is not to their customers, but to their shareholders.³

The business model is simple: maximize revenue from premiums while minimizing expenses from claim payouts.²⁵

Every claim paid is a debit on the corporate ledger, directly reducing profitability.

This creates a powerful, systemic incentive to delay, underpay, or deny claims whenever possible.²⁵

Two key economic drivers fuel this behavior:

1. The “Float”: Insurance companies are massive investment vehicles. The premiums they collect are not kept in a vault; they are invested in the market to generate returns. This pool of investable capital is known as the “float.” When an insurer delays paying a claim, it keeps that money in its investment portfolio for longer, earning interest and returns for the company’s benefit.²⁶ For a large claim, even a delay of a few months can translate into significant investment income for the insurer, all while the policyholder’s financial situation grows more desperate.³⁰
2. Employee Incentives and Corporate Culture: While an adjuster may not receive a line-item bonus for denying a specific claim, their career advancement, annual bonuses, and job security are often tied to performance metrics that align with the company’s goal of minimizing payouts.³¹ Adjusters who consistently “save the company money” by closing claims for low amounts or successfully defending denials are seen as effective employees.²⁰ This fosters a corporate culture where the default approach is skepticism and the path of least resistance for an employee is to find a reason to deny. Over time, this can lead to a systemic practice of looking for ways to avoid payment rather than ways to honor the policy.¹⁹

2.2 Anatomy of a Denial: A Matrix of Common Bad Faith Tactics

The systemic pressure to minimize payouts manifests in a predictable set of tactics.

These strategies are designed to exploit the policyholder’s lack of knowledge, financial vulnerability, and emotional distress.

Recognizing these tactics is the first step in neutralizing them.

The following table serves as a field guide to identifying an insurer’s bad faith playbook.

It transforms a series of frustrating events into a recognizable pattern of strategic behavior, which is the first step toward building a counter-strategy.

Tactic	Insurer’s Goal(s)	Policyholder’s Counter-Evidence / Antidote	Supporting Snippets
Unreasonable Delay	Wear down claimant; induce frustration; accumulate interest on “the float”; approach statute of limitations.	Dated communication log; certified mail receipts; personal journal detailing financial/emotional strain.	16
Lowball Offer	Settle the claim for far less than its value; test claimant’s resolve and knowledge; prey on financial desperation.	Independent repair estimates; medical bills; expert opinions on future costs; documentation of lost wages.	10
Inadequate Investigation	Create a pretext for denial; avoid discovering facts that support the claim.	Witness statements; police/fire reports; photos/videos of the scene; expert reports that the insurer ignored.	10
Misrepresenting Policy	Deceive the claimant into believing they have no coverage or less coverage than they do.	The insurance policy itself (declarations page, exclusions); written communication from the insurer that contradicts the policy.	10
Requesting Recorded Statement	Elicit statements that can be used out of context to imply fault, downplay injuries, or create inconsistencies.	Polite refusal to provide a statement without an attorney present; all communication handled through counsel.	22
Monitoring Social Media	Find photos or posts that appear inconsistent with the claimed injuries to undermine credibility.	Set all social media accounts to private; refrain from posting about the accident or physical activities.	76
Burdensome Document Requests	Complicate and delay the process; create obstacles to frustrate the claimant into giving up.	A log of all documents sent and when; written confirmation from the insurer of receipt.	3
Blaming Pre-existing Conditions	Scour medical history to find a past injury to blame for current symptoms, avoiding liability for the new event.	Medical records and expert testimony distinguishing the new injury from any prior conditions.	21
Advising Against Legal Help	Keep the policyholder unrepresented and at a disadvantage, making them easier to manipulate.	Immediately retaining experienced legal counsel to handle all further communications.	22

2.3 The Adjuster’s Mind: A Psychological Profile

The insurance adjuster is the frontline soldier in this battle.

Understanding their psychology is key to navigating the claims process.

• The Dual Role Conflict: The adjuster’s role is inherently contradictory. They often present themselves as a helpful guide, using empathy and rapport-building as tools to gain the policyholder’s trust.³³ However, their primary professional obligation is to protect the company’s bottom line by minimizing the claim’s payout.³³ This creates a constant tension between the appearance of being an advocate and the reality of being an adversary.
• Key Personality Traits: Occupational psychology suggests that successful adjusters often possess a specific blend of traits. They tend to be highly conscientious, which drives their meticulous review of details. They exhibit strong emotional stability, allowing them to remain calm and rational in stressful negotiations. A degree of agreeableness helps them communicate effectively and build the rapport needed to resolve disputes.³⁵ However, their core function requires deep-seated skepticism.
• Cognitive Biases and Pressures: Adjusters operate in a high-pressure environment, juggling large caseloads with tight deadlines.³⁵ They are trained to scrutinize every claim for inconsistencies, red flags, and potential fraud. Over time, this can foster a default mindset of suspicion, where every policyholder is viewed as a potential adversary trying to exaggerate a claim.¹⁹ Their job is not to determine the full, fair value of a loss, but to calculate the lowest possible amount they believe a claimant will accept without resorting to a lawsuit.³⁴
• Psychological Warfare: This mindset can lead to the use of manipulative psychological tactics. Adjusters may use their position of authority to create a false sense of urgency, pressuring a claimant into a quick, low settlement.³³ They may dispute the necessity of medical treatments recommended by the claimant’s own doctor, despite having no medical training themselves.³⁶ Some may even engage in tactics designed to make the policyholder feel insecure or guilty about the loss itself, weakening their emotional state and making them more likely to accept an unfair offer.³⁷

The friendly demeanor of an adjuster is a calculated professional tool.

Their objective is to resolve the claim for the minimum possible cost to their employer.

Any interaction with an adjuster must be viewed through this strategic lens.

They are not a partner in recovery; they are a professional negotiator with a goal that is diametrically opposed to the policyholder’s.

This reality dictates the single most important rule of engagement: limit direct communication and filter all substantive interactions through experienced legal counsel.

Part III: The Arsenal – Assembling Your Case for Battle

When an insurer acts in bad faith, the policyholder must shift from a passive claimant to an active litigant.

This requires methodically building an arsenal of evidence to prove not only the value of the original claim but also the unreasonableness of the insurer’s conduct.

A successful lawsuit is won long before the trial, through the diligent assembly of an irrefutable case.

3.1 The Power of Paper: Your Most Important Weapon is Documentation

In a bad faith lawsuit, the most powerful weapon is a comprehensive and organized paper trail.

The insurer will have its own version of events, documented in its internal files.

The policyholder must create their own parallel record that is just as, if not more, thorough.

The golden rule is to document everything.¹⁸

This meticulous record-keeping serves as the foundation for the entire legal challenge, turning vague complaints of unfairness into a documented timeline of bad faith.

The essential evidence checklist includes:

• The Policy: Obtain and preserve a complete copy of the insurance policy, including the declarations page, all endorsements, and any riders. This document is the contract that defines the insurer’s primary obligations.¹⁶
• Communications Log: Maintain a detailed journal of every interaction with the insurance company. For every phone call, email, or letter, record the date, time, the name and title of the person you communicated with, and a concise summary of the conversation or correspondence.¹⁸ Send important letters via certified mail to have proof of receipt.
• Proof of Loss: This is the evidence of your initial claim. It should include an exhaustive collection of photos and videos of the damage from multiple angles, a detailed inventory of all damaged or lost property, original receipts or proofs of purchase for valuable items, and multiple independent repair estimates.³⁸
• Proof of Damages: This category includes all evidence of the harm you have suffered, both from the initial event and from the insurer’s bad faith. It encompasses all medical records and bills, documentation of lost wages and lost earning capacity, and any proof of consequential damages, such as business losses, loan default notices, or foreclosure warnings that resulted from the insurer’s failure to pay.¹⁸
• Personal Journal: This is a critical but often overlooked piece of evidence. Keep a private diary detailing the emotional and psychological toll the dispute has taken on you and your family. Document the stress, anxiety, sleepless nights, and frustration caused by the insurer’s conduct. This journal becomes powerful evidence to support a claim for emotional distress damages.⁴⁴

3.2 The Anatomy of a Lawsuit: A Step-by-Step Walkthrough

Filing a lawsuit against an insurance company is a structured process with distinct phases.

Understanding this process demystifies the litigation and helps set realistic expectations for the long road ahead.

• Step 1: Hiring Your General – The Initial Consultation: The first and most critical step is to consult with and hire an attorney who specializes in insurance bad faith litigation.⁶ During the initial consultation, the attorney will review your entire file—the policy, the communications log, the proof of loss—to assess the strength of your case and determine if the insurer’s conduct rises to the level of bad faith.⁴⁶
• Step 2: The Demand Letter – Firing the First Salvo: Before filing a lawsuit, the attorney will typically draft and send a comprehensive demand letter to the insurance company. This formal document outlines the facts of the claim, details the insurer’s specific bad faith actions, provides the legal basis for the lawsuit, and demands a fair settlement within a specified timeframe. This letter serves as a final opportunity for the insurer to resolve the matter before facing litigation.¹⁶
• Step 3: Filing the Complaint & The “Removal” Gambit: If the insurer rejects the demand or fails to respond appropriately, your attorney will file a formal lawsuit by submitting a “complaint” to the appropriate state court.⁴⁶ At this point, the policyholder should be prepared for a common strategic maneuver by the insurer: “removal.” The insurance company’s lawyers will often seek to move the case from state court to federal court.⁴⁷ They do this based on a legal principle called “diversity jurisdiction” (since the policyholder and the out-of-state insurer are from different states) and a belief that federal courts and juries may be more sympathetic to corporate defendants.⁴⁷
• Step 4: Discovery – Exposing the Truth: This is the heart of the litigation process, where your attorney gains the power to compel the insurer to turn over evidence. The claims file, which contains the insurer’s internal notes and communications, is the single most important piece of evidence in a bad faith case. It provides a roadmap for depositions and can reveal the “smoking gun” that proves the insurer knew its denial was unreasonable.⁴⁸ The discovery phase includes several key activities:

• Document Production: Your lawyer will formally request the insurer’s complete, unredacted claim file, including the internal “claims diary,” supervisor notes, and all correspondence related to your claim.⁴⁸ They will also request claims manuals, training materials, and documents related to employee performance reviews and financial incentives.
• Depositions: Your attorney will conduct depositions, which are formal, out-of-court interviews under oath. They will question the claims adjuster, their supervisors, and any other corporate employees who were involved in the decision to deny your claim.⁴⁶
• Interrogatories and Requests for Admission: These are written questions that the insurer must answer under oath and formal requests that the insurer must admit or deny specific facts about the case.⁴⁸

• Step 5: Mediation & Settlement Negotiations: The vast majority of civil cases, including bad faith lawsuits, are resolved before trial.⁴⁹ After substantial discovery has been completed, the court will often order the parties to attend mediation. In mediation, a neutral third-party mediator facilitates negotiations to help both sides reach a settlement agreement.⁴⁶ The evidence and testimony gathered during discovery provide the crucial leverage for your attorney to negotiate from a position of strength.
• Step 6: Trial – The Final Showdown: If a fair settlement cannot be reached, the case will proceed to trial. Your attorney will present all the evidence—your documentation, the insurer’s internal files, and testimony from you, expert witnesses, and the insurer’s own employees—to a judge or jury, who will then render a final verdict.⁵

3.3 Calculating the Full Cost of Betrayal: The Three Categories of Damages

A common misconception is that a lawsuit against an insurer can only recover the original amount of the denied claim.

In a bad faith case, the potential recovery is far broader.

The damages are designed to compensate the policyholder for all the harm caused by the insurer’s wrongful conduct.

The total value of a lawsuit is not merely the claim value; it is a comprehensive calculation that includes [Claim Value] + + [Consequential Financial Loss] + [Attorney’s Fees] +.

There are three main categories of damages:

1. Contract Damages (Benefits Owed): This is the baseline amount—the value of the benefits that the insurance company should have paid under the policy in the first place.¹⁸
2. Extra-Contractual / Consequential Damages: This category compensates the policyholder for all the additional, foreseeable harm that was a direct result of the insurer’s bad faith actions. This goes beyond the policy limits and can include ¹⁸:

• Economic Losses: Lost profits for a business, lost equity in a home facing foreclosure, damage to credit rating, or other financial harm caused by the lack of funds from the denied claim.²
• Emotional Distress Damages: Compensation for the mental and emotional suffering inflicted by the insurer’s conduct, such as anxiety, depression, humiliation, and stress.¹⁶
• Attorney’s Fees and Costs: In many jurisdictions, a successful bad faith plaintiff can recover the legal fees and litigation costs they incurred to force the insurer to pay the claim.¹⁸

3. Punitive Damages: This is the most significant category of damages in a bad faith case. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the policyholder for their losses. Instead, they are designed to punish the insurance company for malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct and to deter that company and others in the industry from engaging in similar wrongful behavior in the future.³ The potential for a large punitive damage award is what gives a bad faith lawsuit its teeth and forces insurers to take the litigation seriously.

Part IV: The Strategic Mindset – Advanced Tactics and Psychological Warfare

Successfully litigating against a multi-billion-dollar insurance corporation requires more than just knowing the law and procedure.

It demands a strategic mindset capable of navigating a prolonged, high-stakes conflict.

This involves understanding the nature of corporate litigation, applying sophisticated analytical frameworks like game theory, and leveraging the human cost of the insurer’s actions as a powerful narrative weapon.

4.1 The Lawsuit as a War of Attrition: David vs. Goliath

Suing a major insurance company is fundamentally different from a typical personal injury case.

It is a “hard-fought affair until the end”.⁵

Insurers view this type of litigation as an existential threat and deploy immense resources to fight it.

They have “armies of high-priced lawyers on retainer” and will not hesitate to use their deep pockets to make the process as difficult and expensive as possible for the plaintiff.³

A common tactic is to try and “bury [plaintiffs] in documents” during discovery, producing tens of thousands of pages in an attempt to overwhelm and exhaust the plaintiff’s legal team and financial resources.⁵³

They are waging a war of attrition, betting that the individual policyholder will lack the stamina and capital to see the fight through to the end.⁵

The plaintiff’s attorney must be prepared to meet this challenge head-on.

This means having the resources to invest in the case, the technological savvy to manage massive document productions, and the tenacity to fight every battle, from filing motions to compel the production of hidden evidence to traveling across the country to depose key witnesses.⁵³

While the insurer has the advantage of resources, the law serves as the “equalizing force”.⁵

A well-prepared, determined plaintiff’s lawyer can use the rules of procedure and evidence to hold the corporate Goliath accountable, but only if they are prepared for a long and arduous battle.

4.2 An Epiphany in a Jail Cell: The Prisoner’s Dilemma in Insurance Negotiations

To truly understand the strategic dynamics of an insurance dispute, it is useful to look to the world of game theory, specifically the famous thought experiment known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Imagine two partners in crime are arrested and held in separate interrogation rooms, unable to communicate.⁵⁵

The prosecutor lacks enough evidence for a major conviction unless one of them confesses.

Each prisoner is offered the same deal:

• If you betray your partner (defect) and they stay silent (cooperate), you go free, and your partner gets a 3-year sentence.
• If you both stay silent (cooperate), you will both be convicted on a lesser charge and serve only 1 year.
• If you both betray each other (defect), you will both serve 2 years.

From a purely individual and rational perspective, betraying the other prisoner is always the “best” move, regardless of what the other does.⁵⁵

If your partner stays silent, betraying them gets you freedom instead of 1 year.

If your partner betrays you, betraying them back gets you 2 years instead of 3.

The trap is that because both prisoners follow this “rational” self-interest, they both choose to betray.

The result is that they both end up with a 2-year sentence—a significantly worse outcome for both of them than the 1-year sentence they would have received if they had only trusted each other and cooperated.⁵⁸

This paradox, where individually rational choices lead to a collectively worse outcome, perfectly models the dynamic of a bad faith insurance dispute.

4.3 Applying Game Theory to Your Negotiation Strategy

The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides a powerful framework for understanding why insurers act in bad faith and how a lawsuit can change their behavior.

• The Insurance “Game”:

• Mutual Cooperation (The Best Collective Outcome): The insurer acts in good faith, promptly investigating and paying the valid claim. The policyholder is made whole without conflict. Both parties avoid the enormous cost, time, and risk of litigation. This is the optimal outcome, equivalent to both prisoners getting a 1-year sentence.
• Insurer Defects / Policyholder Cooperates (The “Sucker’s Payoff”): The insurer “defects” by engaging in bad faith—denying, delaying, or making a lowball offer. The policyholder, acting trustingly or without full information, “cooperates” by accepting the unfair outcome. The insurer achieves its best possible result (maximum profit), while the policyholder suffers the worst result (uncompensated loss). This is the insurer going free while the policyholder gets 3 years.
• Mutual Defection (The Inevitable Lawsuit): The insurer “defects” with bad faith tactics. The policyholder, refusing to be the sucker, responds by “defecting”—hiring an attorney and filing a lawsuit. Now, both parties are locked in a costly, protracted, and uncertain legal battle. Like the prisoners both getting 2 years, this outcome is worse for both sides than if they had simply cooperated from the beginning.⁵⁸ Insurers often start here because they assume the policyholder will not defect in response.
• Breaking the Cycle with Litigation: Understanding this game reframes the purpose of a lawsuit. The insurer’s initial bad faith (“defection”) is based on a calculation that the policyholder will cooperate (give in) or that the cost of mutual defection (litigation) is manageable. The goal of a plaintiff’s lawyer is to fundamentally alter the insurer’s payoff matrix. By building an ironclad case and demonstrating a credible threat of a massive punitive damage award at trial, you dramatically increase the potential cost of the insurer’s defection. The risk is no longer just paying the claim plus legal fees; it is paying the claim plus a multi-million-dollar punishment. This forces the insurer to re-evaluate its strategy. Suddenly, continued defection (fighting the lawsuit) becomes too risky, and cooperation (offering a fair and full settlement) becomes the new, “rational” choice.⁶⁰ Hiring a lawyer and filing suit is the act of refusing to swerve in a game of chicken; it signals a willingness to go to the “crash” of a trial, which forces the insurer to reconsider its aggressive posture.⁶⁰

4.4 The Human Cost as a Narrative Weapon

The emotional toll of battling an insurance company is a legally recognized category of damages, but its strategic value goes far beyond that.

It is the narrative heart of a bad faith case.

Juries are composed of human beings who understand concepts of fairness, vulnerability, and betrayal.

The story of a bad faith case is not just about a breached contract; it is about a powerful corporation inflicting profound and unnecessary suffering on a vulnerable customer for the sake of profit.

Documented psychological impacts of these battles include severe anxiety, depression, insomnia, chronic fatigue, panic attacks, and a pervasive sense of being “emotionally and financially drained”.⁴³

When this evidence is presented at trial—through the policyholder’s own heartfelt testimony, the corroborating accounts of family members, and the clinical findings of therapists and doctors—it transforms the case.⁴⁴

It allows a jury to see the real-world consequences of the insurer’s cold, calculated business decision.

This narrative of human suffering is what fuels the moral outrage necessary to justify a significant punitive damage award, turning a dry legal dispute into a compelling story of injustice that demands correction.

Part V: War Stories and Precedents – Learning from the Battles of the Past

Legal principles and strategic theories are best understood when seen in action.

The history of bad faith litigation is filled with landmark cases and real-world battles that provide invaluable lessons for policyholders.

These stories are more than just legal precedent; they are powerful narratives that illustrate what corporate bad faith looks like in practice and how it can be defeated.

5.1 Landmark Ruling Deep Dive: State Farm v. Campbell

The case of State Farm v.

Campbell is arguably the most important bad faith insurance ruling of the modern era.

It is a cautionary tale that reveals how a single, seemingly routine claim can expose a rotten, nationwide corporate culture.

• The Story: In 1981, Curtis Campbell caused a tragic car accident that killed one person and permanently disabled another. State Farm, Campbell’s insurer, had multiple opportunities to settle the claims against him for his policy limit of $50,000. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Campbell’s fault and the high risk of a much larger verdict, State Farm refused to settle.⁶³ Company representatives assured the Campbells that their personal assets were safe and that they did not need their own lawyer.⁶⁵ State Farm took the case to trial and lost spectacularly, with a jury returning a judgment of $185,849 against Campbell. Initially, the company refused to pay the amount exceeding the policy limit and, in a moment of infamous callousness, a State Farm lawyer told the Campbells, “You may want to put for sale signs on your property to get things moving”.⁶⁶
• The Systemic Bad Faith: The Campbells, now facing personal bankruptcy, sued State Farm for bad faith. During this trial, their lawyers uncovered and introduced evidence of State Farm’s nationwide “Performance, Planning and Review” (PP&R) policy. This was not an isolated mistake by a single adjuster but a deliberate, top-down corporate scheme designed to meet aggressive fiscal goals by systematically capping claim payouts, using fraudulent practices, and denying valid claims across the country.⁶⁵
• The Supreme Court’s Ruling: The Utah jury, outraged by the evidence of both the personal cruelty shown to the Campbells and the systemic corporate misconduct, awarded the family $1 million in compensatory damages and a breathtaking $145 million in punitive damages. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court, while acknowledging State Farm’s reprehensible conduct, found that the 145-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was constitutionally excessive and violated the Due Process Clause.⁶³ The Court established new guideposts for punitive damages, suggesting that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages… will satisfy due process”.⁶⁶
• Lessons Learned: The Campbell case is the ultimate example of third-party bad faith (failure to settle within policy limits). It demonstrates how a single claim can become a vehicle for exposing widespread corporate wrongdoing. While the Supreme Court’s decision placed important constitutional limits on the size of punitive damage awards, the case remains a powerful narrative tool. A skilled trial lawyer does not just cite Campbell as precedent; they tell the story of the Campbell family to a jury to illustrate the profound arrogance and harm that can result from an insurer’s bad faith.

5.2 Other Foundational Cases (Brief Analysis)

• Gruenberg v. Aetna (1973): In this seminal California case, a business owner’s claim for a fire loss was denied when his insurer, Aetna, baselessly accused him of arson to avoid payment. The court’s ruling was groundbreaking because it firmly established that the insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing was an obligation independent of its duties under the contract. This decision solidified bad faith as a distinct tort, paving the way for policyholders to recover damages, including for emotional distress and punitive awards, far beyond the policy’s face value.²³
• Johnson v. GEICO (2018): This case reinforced the heavy consequences for an insurer that fails to make a reasonable settlement offer in a third-party liability claim. When GEICO refused to settle within its policyholder’s limits, it exposed its client to a large excess judgment. The court’s decision in favor of the injured plaintiff (who had been assigned the bad faith claim) underscored the insurer’s obligation to protect its own insured from personal liability by settling reasonably.²³
• Moody v. American Guaranty & Liability Insurance Company (2017): This case highlighted an insurer’s duty to handle first-party claims promptly and fairly. After Darryl Moody’s home was damaged by fire, his insurer delayed payment and disputed the claim without justification. The court awarded Moody not only his policy benefits but also substantial compensatory and punitive damages, sending a clear message that unreasonable delays and disputes will be punished.²³

5.3 Dispatches from the Trenches: Case Studies in Bad Faith

Real-world examples demonstrate the varied forms that bad faith can take and the strategies used to combat it.

• The Denied Defense and the $13 Million Settlement: A school bus driver was involved in a tragic accident resulting in a child’s death. His insurance carriers, in an attempt to pressure the victim’s family into accepting a low settlement, threatened to deny the driver’s coverage. When the family held firm, the insurers followed through and denied coverage. The driver, facing ruin, hired new attorneys who uncovered extensive evidence of the insurers’ bad faith. They secured a $13 million settlement for the driver, who then used the funds to satisfy his moral and legal obligation to the grieving family.⁶⁹
• The Fictional Exclusion and the $2 Million Award: The co-owners of a convenience store that also operated a paintball facility were sued when a paintball client suffered an eye injury. Their insurer denied their claim for a legal defense, arguing that the policy only covered the convenience store, not the paintball operations. The owners’ lawyers proved this was a bad faith interpretation of the policy. The case settled for $2 million—twice the original $1 million policy limit—compensating the owners for the insurer’s failure to defend them.⁶⁹
• The Denied Hail Claim and the Falsified Expert: In a cautionary tale that shows bad faith is not exclusive to insurers, a homeowner’s insurer was sued for denying a hail damage claim. The insurer’s defense team, through diligent discovery, uncovered that the plaintiff’s attorney had falsified expert witness designations. The court found the lawsuit to be frivolous and brought for the purpose of harassment, granting summary judgment for the insurer and ordering the plaintiff and their attorney to pay the insurer’s legal fees.⁷⁰
• The Staged Robbery Defense: Not every claim denial constitutes bad faith. An insurer denied a claim from a jewelry wholesaler who reported an armed robbery. The insurer investigated and concluded the robbery was staged to commit fraud. The wholesaler sued for bad faith, but at trial, the insurer’s lawyers successfully presented evidence to the jury proving their investigation was reasonable and their denial was justified. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the insurance company, demonstrating that a thorough, good-faith investigation is a legitimate defense against a bad faith accusation.⁷¹

These cases reveal a crucial truth: a pattern of unreasonable conduct is often the key to proving bad faith.

While a lawsuit is centered on the harm done to one policyholder, evidence of similar bad acts—uncovered from internal company documents, other lawsuits, or whistleblower testimony—can be used to establish a pattern of misconduct.

This demonstrates the insurer’s malicious intent or reckless disregard, which is the cornerstone of a punitive damages claim.⁶⁵

Part VI: Beyond the Courtroom – Alternative Fronts and Resolutions

While a bad faith lawsuit is the ultimate weapon for holding an insurer accountable, it is not the only tool available to a policyholder.

Other avenues, such as regulatory complaints and alternative dispute resolution, can serve as valuable supplementary tactics or, in some cases, provide a more efficient path to resolution.

However, it is critical to understand their specific functions and limitations.

6.1 The Department of Insurance: A Tool with Limitations

Every state has a government agency, typically called the Department of Insurance (DOI) or a similar name, responsible for regulating the insurance industry and protecting consumers.⁷²

A policyholder who believes they are being treated unfairly can file a formal complaint with their state’s DOI.⁷²

The DOI can be a useful ally.

Upon receiving a complaint, the agency will typically contact the insurance company and require a formal response within a set period, such as 15 or 25 business days.⁷⁴

They will review the insurer’s response to ensure it is complying with state laws and fair claims handling practices.⁷⁵

The complaint also becomes part of the insurer’s official regulatory record, which is monitored for trends of unfair practices.⁷⁵

However, the DOI’s power is limited.

It is a regulator, not a court.

A DOI cannot:

• Act as your lawyer or provide legal advice.⁷⁵
• Force an insurance company to pay a disputed claim.⁷⁵
• Determine who was at fault in an accident or how much a claim is worth.⁷⁵
• Adjudicate a bad faith claim or award damages for emotional distress or punitive sanctions.

The primary value of a DOI complaint is not as a solution in itself, but as a pressure tactic.

An insurer facing a potential bad faith lawsuit may be more inclined to reconsider its position and offer a fair settlement to avoid having another formal complaint on its permanent record, especially if it is already under regulatory scrutiny for its claims handling practices.

It is a low-cost, low-risk step that can add another layer of pressure, but it is not a substitute for retaining legal counsel and pursuing a legal claim.

6.2 Arbitration and Mediation: Alternative Dispute Resolution

Before or during a lawsuit, parties may turn to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods to resolve their conflict without a full trial.

• Mediation: This is a non-binding, facilitated negotiation. Both the policyholder’s team and the insurer’s team meet with a neutral third party, typically an experienced lawyer or retired judge, called a mediator.⁴⁶ The mediator does not make a decision but works with both sides, often in separate rooms, to explore the strengths and weaknesses of their cases and help them find a mutually agreeable settlement. Mediation is a very common and often mandatory step in the litigation process.⁴⁶ A successful mediation results in a binding settlement agreement, ending the lawsuit.
• Arbitration: This is a more formal process that resembles a private trial. Both sides agree to present their case to a neutral arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, who will listen to the evidence and render a decision.⁵⁰ In many cases, the parties agree in advance that the arbitrator’s decision will be legally binding, meaning they waive their right to a jury trial and have very limited grounds for appeal.⁷³ While arbitration can be faster and less formal than a court trial, it also involves surrendering important legal rights. A policyholder should never agree to binding arbitration without a thorough understanding of the consequences and the strong advice of their attorney.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Your Power and Restoring the Promise

The journey of a policyholder forced to sue their own insurance company is a quintessential “David vs. Goliath” struggle.⁵

It is a battle against a corporate entity with seemingly limitless resources, a team of seasoned lawyers, and a playbook refined over decades to frustrate, exhaust, and defeat claimants.

The fight is daunting, the emotional toll is real, and the process is arduous.

But it is a winnable war.

The law itself provides the policyholder’s sling and stone: the tort of bad faith.

This powerful legal doctrine transforms the dispute from a simple disagreement over money into a moral and financial reckoning for the insurer.

It recognizes that an insurance policy is not just any contract; it is a promise of protection in a time of profound vulnerability, and the breach of that promise is a significant legal wrong deserving of punishment.

Victory, however, is not guaranteed.

It is earned through diligence, strategy, and resolve.

It begins with understanding the legal terrain and the fundamental covenant of good faith that underpins every policy.

It requires deconstructing the adversary’s playbook, recognizing that bad faith tactics are not random mistakes but calculated features of a profit-driven business model.

It is built upon the meticulous assembly of an arsenal of evidence—a paper trail that documents every interaction, every delay, and every dollar of harm.

Ultimately, confronting an insurer requires adopting a strategic mindset.

By understanding the conflict through the lens of game theory, the policyholder and their counsel can shift from being reactive victims to proactive players, altering the insurer’s risk calculus and forcing them to recognize that a fair settlement is a more rational choice than facing a jury’s wrath.

Hiring an experienced bad faith insurance lawyer is not an act of aggression; it is the single most important step a policyholder can take to level the playing field and protect their rights.⁶

It signals to the insurer that the policyholder will not be intimidated, will not be worn down, and will not abandon their right to the benefits they paid for.

It is the necessary act of force required to restore the original, fundamental promise of the insurance policy: to provide security, peace of mind, and a path to recovery when it is needed most.

Works cited

1. About This Blog | Oklahoma Bad Faith Insider | Insights for Policyholders, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.badfaithinsider.com/about-this-blog/
2. Insurance Bad Faith | Philadelphia Insurance Claim Lawyers Kang Haggerty LLC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.khflaw.com/insurance-bad-faith.html
3. Experienced Bad Faith Insurance Attorney: Protecting Your Rights | Aaron Engle Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://aaronenglelaw.com/practice/bad-faith-insurance-attorneys/
4. Fighting the Insurance Companies After a Car Accident | Holliday Karatinos Law Firm, PLLC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.helpinginjuredpeople.com/blog/fighting-the-insurance-companies-after-a-car-accident/
5. Going up Against a Massive Company in a Legal Dispute? We Can Help! – King & Jones, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.chicagobusinesstriallawyers.com/insights/up-against-massive-company-legal-dispute/
6. How and When to Hire a Bad Faith Insurance Lawyer (and Why), accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.enjuris.com/bad-faith-insurance/choosing-bad-faith-attorney/
7. Bad Faith Insurance | Phillips Law Firm, Inc. | Ohio, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.phillipslawfirm.com/insurance-claim/bad-faith-insurance/
8. Bad faith – Legal Dictionary | Law.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=21
9. What is Bad Faith Insurance? – Gervelis Law Firm, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gervelislaw.com/blog/what-is-bad-faith-insurance/
10. Insurance Bad Faith Law | Personal Injury Law Center | Jusita, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.justia.com/injury/insurance-bad-faith/
11. California Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kantorlaw.net/types-of-cases/insurance-bad-faith/
12. BAD FAITH SET-UPS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES – Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, accessed August 12, 2025, https://wtotrial.com/files/29651_bad_faith_set-ups_of_insurance_companies.pdf
13. What You Need To Know About Bad Faith Insurance Claims – Whalen Injury Lawyers, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.whaleninjurylawyers.com/can-bad-faith-occur-during-any-type-of-insurance-claim/
14. Bad Faith Conduct: How Bad is Bad Enough Under PA Law? – Zelle LLP, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.zellelaw.com/news-publications-486
15. BAD FAITH – The Law Dictionary, accessed August 12, 2025, https://thelawdictionary.org/bad-faith/
16. How to Sue an Insurance Company for Bad Faith in NC?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://whitleylawfirm.com/faqs/how-to-sue-insurance-company-bad-faith/
17. Has Your Insurance Company Done You Wrong by Denying Your Claim? Don’t Lose Hope, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.vosslawfirm.com/blog/worried-about-affording-a-bad-faith-insurance-lawyer.cfm
18. Bad Faith Insurance: What It Is and How to Fight Back | 7/1/2025, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.forthepeople.com/blog/bad-faith-insurance-what-it-and-how-fight-back/
19. Courts Letting Insurers Get Away With Bad Faith | Property …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/blog/courts-letting-insurers-get-away-with-bad-faith/
20. How to Sue an Insurance Company For Bad Faith | Wallace Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wallaceinsurancelaw.com/how-to-sue-an-insurance-company-for-bad-faith/
21. How Insurance Companies Look for Ways to Deny Claims Rather Than Pay Them, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gmlawyers.com/how-insurance-companies-deny-claims/
22. Insurance Company Tactics: Claim Denial Tricks You Should Look Out For, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bellpollockinjury.com/insurance-company-tactics-claim-denial-tricks-you-should-look-out-for/
23. 5 Examples of Famous Bad Faith Insurance Lawsuits That Were …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://anthony-smithlaw.com/5-examples-of-famous-bad-faith-insurance-lawsuits-that-were-won/
24. 9 Bad Faith Insurance Practices You Should Know – PARRIS Law Firm, accessed August 12, 2025, https://parris.com/news/insurance/9-bad-faith-insurance-practices-to-look-out-for
25. Top Reasons Insurance Companies Deny Claims | Doug Terry Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.dougterrylaw.com/why-insurance-companies-delay-deny-claims/
26. Why Do Insurance Companies Delay Paying Valid Claims? – Dan Davis Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://dandavislaw.com/why-do-insurance-companies-delay-paying-valid-claims/
27. Why Do Car Insurance Companies Delay Paying Valid Claims? | Miller and Hine Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.millerandhinelaw.com/why-do-car-insurance-companies-delay-paying-valid-claims/
28. How Do Insurance Companies Profit from Delaying Payment of Insurance Claims?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.jpgonzalez-sirgo.com/blog/how-do-insurance-companies-profit-from-delaying-payment-of-insurance-claims-.cfm
29. Why Do Insurance Companies Delay Paying Valid Claims?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://harrislawyers.com/why-do-insurance-companies-delay-paying-valid-claims/
30. Why Do Insurance Companies Delay Paying Valid Claims? – Fang Law Firm, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.fanglawfirm.com/why-do-insurance-companies-delay-paying-valid-claims/
31. Do Insurance Adjusters Get Bonuses for Denying Claims? | Wallace Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wallaceinsurancelaw.com/do-insurance-adjusters-get-bonuses-for-denying-claims/
32. INSURANCE CLAIM DENIALS – CGA.ct.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0071.htm
33. What Negotiation Tactics Do Insurance Adjusters Use – Recovery Law Center, accessed August 12, 2025, https://recoverylawcenterhawaii.com/blog/what-negotiation-tactics-do-insurance-adjusters-use/
34. The Psychology of the Average Insurance Adjuster – McCraw Law Group, accessed August 12, 2025, https://mccrawlawgroup.com/blog/the-psychology-of-the-average-insurance-adjuster/
35. The Psychology Behind Being a Insurance Adjuster, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.zimbardo.com/the-psychology-behind-being-a-insurance-adjuster/
36. Insurance Claim Adjuster Secret Tactics | Jason English Law Firm, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.jasonenglishlaw.com/insurance-claim-adjuster-secret-tactics
37. The Psychology of a Claim (Part I) – The Howarth Group, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.thehowarthgroup.com/2011/12/the-psychology-of-a-claim-part-i/
38. How To Document Proof of Loss for a Claim – AmeriClaims, accessed August 12, 2025, https://americlaims.com/blog/how-to-document-proof-of-loss-for-a-claim/
39. Claims Dispute Guide | Insurance Experts, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.insuranceclaimrecoverysupport.com/claims-dispute/
40. A Comprehensive Guide to Navigating the Insurance Claim Process, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wallaceinsurancelaw.com/a-comprehensive-guide-to-navigating-the-insurance-claim-process/
41. How To Sue An Insurance Company For Bad Faith, accessed August 12, 2025, https://boonswanglaw.com/life-insurance/how-to-sue-an-insurance-company-for-bad-faith/
42. grishamkendall.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://grishamkendall.com/blog/how-to-document-property-damage-for-insurance-claim/#:~:text=Provide%20supporting%20evidence%20like%20videos,or%20fire%20department%20official%20reports.
43. Can I Sue My Insurance Company for Emotional Distress – Personal Injury Lawyers, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.coloradolaw.net/practice-area/bad-faith-insurance/can-i-sue-my-insurance-company-for-emotional-distress/
44. Can I Sue My Insurance Company for Emotional Distress? | Wallace Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wallaceinsurancelaw.com/can-i-sue-my-insurance-company-for-emotional-distress/
45. Kansas City Insurance Bad Faith Attorneys – Dollar Burns Becker & Hershewe, accessed August 12, 2025, https://dollar-law.com/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith/
46. What to Expect in an Insurance Bad Faith Claim – Boland Aarab | Consumer Protection and Personal Injury Attorneys, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bolandaarab.com/insurance-bad-faith-2/
47. Suing an Insurance Company After an Accident – The Kryder Law Group, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kryderlaw.com/blog/suing-an-insurance-company-after-an-accident/
48. Discovery: The claims file in bad-faith cases – Advocate Magazine, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2018-october/discovery-the-claims-file-in-bad-faith-cases
49. Do Insurance Companies Want to Settle Out of Court? | Stewart J. Guss Injury Lawyers, accessed August 12, 2025, https://attorneyguss.com/blog/do-insurance-companies-want-to-settle-out-of-court/
50. Tips For Going Up Against a Massive Company in a Legal Dispute, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.stlawfirm.com/blog/2019/10/tips-for-going-up-against-a-massive-company-in-a-legal-dispute/
51. Emotional Distress Damages California Wrongful Insurance Claim …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gmlawyers.com/resources-and-info/emotional-distress-damages/
52. Life Insurance Bad Faith Claims, accessed August 12, 2025, https://life-insurance-lawyer.com/insurance-bad-faith/
53. Howe We Take on Large Corporations | Fresno, California – Bryant Whitten, LLP, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bwlaw.com/how-we-take-on-large-corporations/
54. Tactics Used By Insurance Companies To Limit Claims | First Law Group, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.firstlg.com/tactics-used-by-insurance-companies-to-limit-claims/
55. Prisoner’s dilemma – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
56. Factors of influence in prisoner’s dilemma task: a review of medical literature – PMC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802712/
57. How Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Theory Applies to Managerial Economics – Dummies.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.dummies.com/article/business-careers-money/business/economics/how-prisoners-dilemma-game-theory-applies-to-managerial-economics-166710/
58. What Is the Prisoner’s Dilemma and How Does It Work? – Investopedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp
59. The Prisoner’s Dilemma in Business and the Economy – Investopedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110513/utilizing-prisoners-dilemma-business-and-economy.asp
60. Game theory and the art of litigation strategy – Article 4 | RPC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.rpclegal.com/thinking/commercial-disputes/game-theory-and-the-art-of-litigation-strategy-article-4/
61. APPLICATION OF GAME THEORY TO SOME PROBLEMS IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.casact.org/sites/default/files/database/astin_vol2no2_208.pdf
62. Applying Game Theory in Negotiation | Scotwork Global, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.scotwork.com/negotiation-insights/applying-game-theory-in-negotiation/
63. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1289.ZS.html
64. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell | Case Brief for Law Students, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-to-yeazell/incentives-to-litigate/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-v-campbell/
65. STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL – Law.Cornell.Edu, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1289.ZO.html
66. separate opinion by Maynard, C.J., David M. Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins., Nos. 31372 and 31643 – West Virginia Court, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/31372D.pdf
67. Campbell v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. :: 2001 :: Utah Supreme Court Decisions – Justia Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/2001/campbell.html
68. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell – Oyez, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1289
69. What Is Bad Faith Litigation? | Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader, accessed August 12, 2025, https://bflawfirm.com/bad-faith-litigation-in-kansas-city-2/
70. Insurance Company Wins Award of Attorneys’ Fees – Shields Legal Group, accessed August 12, 2025, https://shieldslegal.com/case_study/insurance-company-wins-award-of-attorneys-fees/
71. Insurance Attorneys – Sheppard Mullin, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.sheppardmullin.com/insurance
72. Get help with an insurance complaint – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/consumer/get-help-with-an-insurance-complaint.html
73. Proposition 30: Insurance Claims Practices. Civil Remedies. – Legislative Analyst’s Office, accessed August 12, 2025, https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2000/30_03_2000.html
74. Getting help with an insurance complaint – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/tips/ways-we-can-help.html
75. Understanding the complaint process | Office of the Insurance Commissioner, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.insurance.wa.gov/complaints-appeals-fraud/complaints/understanding-complaint-process
76. 10 Tricks an Insurance Company May Use to Unfairly Deny Your Claim, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.dll-law.com/blog/tricks-insurance-companies-use-to-deny-claims.cfm
77. Why Do Insurance Companies Delay Paying Valid Claims? – Salango Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.salangolaw.com/why-do-insurance-companies-delay-paying-valid-claims/
78. What Are The Common Tactics Insurance Companies Use To Fight Injury Claims?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.malmlegal.com/blog/common-insurance-tactics-used-to-fight-claims/
79. The Games Insurance Adjusters Play and How You Can Beat Them, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/games-insurance-adjusters-play-how-to-beat-them/
80. Common Tactics Insurance Companies Use to Deny Your Claim – Freedman Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.freedmanlaw.com/common-tactics-insurance-companies-use-to-deny-your-claim/
81. Examples of Bad Faith Insurance Claims | Dawson & Rosenthal, P.C., accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.dawsonandrosenthal.com/what-are-some-examples-of-bad-faith-insurance-claims/
82. Bad Faith Insurance Tactics, accessed August 12, 2025, https://mccormickmurphy.com/bad-faith/examples/
83. How to Scare an Insurance Adjuster | Stewart J. Guss, Attorney At Law, accessed August 12, 2025, https://attorneyguss.com/blog/how-to-scare-insurance-adjuster/
84. How Do I Know When to File a Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurance Company?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gmlawyers.com/faq/when-to-file-bad-faith-claim-against-insurance/