From our private database of 14,200+ case briefs...
Beck v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
Utah Supreme Court
701 P.2d 795 (1985)
Beck (plaintiff) was insured by Famers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) (defendant). Under Beck’s policy, Farmers agreed to provide Beck with reimbursement for medical expenses and uninsured motorist benefits in the event Beck was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. On January 16, 1982, Beck was injured in a hit-and-run accident. The owner of the car that hit Beck said that her car was stolen and denied knowledge of the incident. The car owner’s insurance company denied Beck’s claim. Beck filed claims with Farmers for medical expenses and uninsured motorist benefits. Farmers granted Beck’s claim for medical expenses but denied his claim for uninsured motorist benefits. On June 23, 1982, Beck offered to settle his claim for uninsured motorist benefits with Farmers for $20,000; the policy limit. Beck alleged that his claim was worth substantially more than $20,000. Farmers rejected Beck’s settlement offer without explanation on July 1, 1982. On August 2, 1982, Beck filed suit in Utah state court against Famers. Beck brought contract and tort law claims against Farmers, including breach of contract (contract claim), bad faith in refusing to investigate or settle Beck’s uninsured motorist claim (tort claim), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (tort claim). During the trial proceedings, Farmers offered to settle Beck’s uninsured motorist claim for $15,000. Beck accepted this offer allegedly due to financial pressures caused by the substantial expenses he incurred in the ten months since his accident due to Farmers’ delay in paying Beck for his claim. Beck submitted the affidavit of a former insurance adjuster stating that a prudent insurance company would have valued Beck’s claim at up to $40,000, and that Farmer’s delay in settling the claim constituted bad faith. Farmers provided no evidence to rebut this affidavit. The trial court granted judgment for Farmers, and Beck appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Zimmerman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 237,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.