Roe v. Harco National Insurance Company, 4:15-cv-00558

In Aug. 2009 a commercial truck owned by Frontier was test-driven by Timothy Roe; his minor daughter Shelby Roe was a passenger and both were injured when another motorist struck the truck.
The truck was insured by Harco under a policy with $500,000 combined single-limit UM/UIM per accident; both Timothy and Shelby qualified as insureds under the policy.
Timothy’s counsel notified Harco Oct. 30, 2009; Harco investigated and ultimately paid Timothy a total of $500,000 (final payment May 2013), which Harco says exhausted the policy for that accident.
Shelby’s counsel sent Harco a claim letter May 4, 2011 (and again Oct. 9, 2014 seeking medical damages); Harco’s investigator evaluated Shelby’s claim and concluded it was not worth more than the tortfeasor’s $25,000 liability limit.
Shelby sued Harco alleging breach of contract and bad faith; breach was later dismissed with prejudice, leaving only the bad-faith claim asserting (1) failure to apportion benefits and (2) failure to investigate/evaluate her claim.
The court granted Harco summary judgment on the bad-faith claim, holding Harco had no duty under Oklahoma law to apportion the single-limit UM/UIM payment and that Harco reasonably investigated/evaluated Shelby’s claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether insurer must apportion UM/UIM single-limit among insureds	Roe: apportionment required; she was entitled to a share of UM/UIM benefits	Harco: Oklahoma law has no authority requiring apportionment; no duty existed	Court: No duty to apportion; summary judgment for Harco
Whether Harco failed to investigate/evaluate Shelby’s claim (May 4, 2011 onward)	Roe: Harco delayed/failed to evaluate Shelby’s claim properly after notice	Harco: Investigator Kathy Van Ryn did investigate and concluded Shelby’s damages did not exceed tortfeasor limits; relied on that reasonable evaluation	Court: Investigation occurred and evaluation was reasonable; no bad faith; summary judgment for Harco
Whether withholding payment was unreasonable as matter of law	Roe: withholding and failure to apportion was unreasonable and in bad faith	Harco: No conclusive Oklahoma authority requires apportionment; where law unsettled insurer’s withholding not bad faith	Court: Where legal duty is unsettled, unreasonable/bad-faith elements absent; Harco entitled to judgment
Whether any factual disputes preclude summary judgment	Roe: asserts factual issues about communication and investigation timing	Harco: record shows investigation and basis for denial; plaintiff cites no admissible contrary evidence	Court: Plaintiff failed to raise genuine material factual dispute; summary judgment for Harco

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden principles)
Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass'n, 14 F.3d 526 (nonmoving party must support assertions)
Willis v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 42 F.3d 607 (Oklahoma insurer duty of good faith in Tenth Circuit)
Ball v. Wilshire Ins. Co., 221 P.3d 717 (Okla. 2009) (elements of bad-faith claim; unsettled law defeats bad faith)
Skinner v. John Deere Ins. Co., 998 P.2d 1219 (Okla. 2000) (coverage disputes and bad faith)
Barnes v. Okla. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 11 P.3d 162 (Okla. 2000) (reasonableness of insurer’s conduct)
Davis v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 1250 (Tenth Circuit on settled law requirement for bad-faith liability)
Christian v. Amer. Home Assurance Co., 577 P.2d 899 (Okla. 1977) (settled-law requirement for bad faith)
May v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 84 F.3d 1342 (Tenth Circuit on statutory UM minimums)