Often claims arise in which the insurer is not your own, but rather that of a neighbor, HOA, or other third-party against whom you have a claim. The question becomes whether that insurer has any duties to you, including not to mislead you.
In Mel H. Binning, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 74 Cal. App. 3d 615, 619 (1977) the Court ruled “It does not follow, however, that an insurance company is not liable for its own torts simply because they arise from a situation in which the victim is not an insured. An insurance company's position does not, of course, give it a license to defraud.” This means that while a third-party insurer
“had no duty to answer [your] questions but if it did offer information, it had a duty to tell the truth. It follows that if the decision to remain open was induced by false representations made with the requisite fraudulent intent, liability could be imposed." Id. at 620.
Your opponent’s lawyers, even if hired by their insurer, have the same duties not to mislead you. See also Vega v. Jones, Day, 121 Cal. App. 4th 282, 291-292 (2004) (holding a lawyer communicating on behalf of a client with a nonclient may not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to the nonclient…and may be liable to a nonclient for fraudulent statements made during business negotiations” and “Even where no duty to disclose would otherwise exist, ‘where one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated. One who is asked for or volunteers information must be truthful, and the telling of a half-truth calculated to deceive is fraud.”).
In Binning, Plaintiff was a third-party claimant after a fire at his business was caused by the insureds coffee maker. During the investigation of his third-party claim, Plaintiff advised the insurer that he would keep his business open “if it appeared that there would be a swift determination by Safeco as to whether its insureds were liable.” He was informed by the insurance company that “there would be a speedy investigation and good faith offer to settle if investigation indicated liability.” Id. at 618. He was told by a claims manager that for the “investigation of the origin of the fire and the liability of its insureds [the insurer] had hired Mr. John Peterson, a fire origin expert, who was assisting in the investigation of the fire” and “an adjuster for Safeco, represented to plaintiff that Safeco was examining the origin report prepared by Mr. Peterson and would quickly make a determination as to liability based on that report.” Id. at 618. In actuality, Safeco was not conducting a speedy and thorough investigation, had not hired Mr. John Peterson, and was not examining, nor did it have an origin report prepared by that expert.” The Plaintiff then sued for damages in the sum of $300,000 in compensatory damages for the time he stayed open in reliance on the insurers misrepresentations, as well as punitive damages. Id. The Court found that this was sufficient to state claims for both fraud and negligent misrepresentation against the insurer and punitives. Id at 621.
So if any third-party’s insurer misrepresents facts to you that cause you delay and/or harm, there might be actionable claims.