Sentences with phrase «bad faith conduct»

Even if the custodial parent is otherwise «fit,» such bad faith conduct may be relevant to a determination of what permanent custody arrangement is in the minor children's best interest.

Aggravated damages are intended to compensate for employer bad faith conduct in the course of termination, where that conduct causes the terminated employee to suffer damages, usually in the form of mental distress.

A California Bar advisory opinion quoted the rule and went as far as to opine that technological ignorance «may result in violations of the duty of confidentiality, notwithstanding a lack of bad faith conduct.»

Successfully represented Plaintiff in fire loss claim against insurer where jury awarded $ 175,000.00 in punitive damages for bad faith conduct of insurer in denying claim based on an alleged misrepresentation in in the application process (Haji - Fazul v. Lloyd's Underwriters)

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld the award for mental damages and also awarded Ms. Fidler $ 100,000 in punitive damages for bad faith conduct by Sun Life.

Some examples of insensitive or bad faith conduct at the time of termination include:

The necessity of such immunity (as well as the limits of such immunity where a plaintiff alleges bad faith conduct) is illustrated in the Ontario case of Deep v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 5248 (September 23, 2010), where the College revoked the claimant's certificate of registration based on findings of professional misconduct and incompetence.

In Honda v. Keays, The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that employees are able to collect damages for mental distress stemming from bad faith conduct in the manner of termination.

Author: Evan Ivkovic, J.D., Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

Bad faith conduct includes situations in which the employer was untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive at the time of dismissal.

Siding with the Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, the Supreme Court held a federal court exercising its inherent authority to sanction bad faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side's legal fees is limited to awarding the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct or — put another way — to the fees that party would not have incurred but for the bad faith.

• Engaged in bad faith conduct which included not making full, complete and timely disclosure of certain information; other information validly requested by the wife was never provided at all.

But his blog posts about the industry, even as he defended against one of its copyright lawsuits in federal court in New York, did not constitute bad faith conduct that would warrant sanctions, a magistrate - judge has decided.

Richard Thomas Robol, Esq., who aided in the recovery of treasure from a shipwreck, has been sanctioned by a District Court in Ohio for engaging in bad faith conduct during related litigation.

The requirement that an employee must prove that he or she suffered compensable mental distress as a result of the employer's bad faith conduct at the time of dismissal has made it more difficult for dismissed employee's to successfully claim moral damages.

Justices Wagner, Rothstein, and Chief Justice McLachlin then inquired about the distinction, if any, between a positive duty of good faith and a negative duty to abstain from bad faith conduct.

In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, the High Court held federal courts» inherent authority to award attorney fees for bad faith conduct was limited to the amount the innocent party incurred specifically as a result of that bad behavior.

«By clear and convincing evidence, the record overwhelmingly supports a finding that Rosales» bad faith conduct in these matters has been brazenly dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent,» Ezra said.

Such action will not only stop there, as The Devin Law Firm, P.A. will also take action and recourse to put a stop to that bad faith conduct and unfair and deceptive trade by moving for punitive damages and treble damages respectively at trial.

«By clear and convincing evidence,» Ezra wrote, «the record overwhelmingly supports a finding that Rosales» bad faith conduct in these matters has been brazenly dishonest, deceitful, and fraudulent.»

Actual damages must compensate you for the actual financial losses you have suffered because of the bad faith conduct.

The damages you are awarded can also include amounts to compensate for specific injuries you have suffered as a direct result of the bad faith conduct.

In each case, the trial judge must examine the nature of the bad faith conduct and its impact in the circumstances.

Sometimes the insurers might be involved in bad faith conduct and can be liable for statutory violation, fair dealing and breach of good faith.

Additionally, courts have recognized a duty of good faith in the manner of termination and have awarded damages against employers who engage in bad faith conduct or callous treatment when dismissing employees.

Previously, an injured person had the right to sue their insurer for the wrongful denial of benefits, and for mental distress and punitive damages resulting from the insurer's breach of contract and bad faith conduct.

Bad faith conduct can be claimed when the insurer breaches its contractual duty of good faith in handling an insured's claim for accident benefits.

On May 3, 2016, the Ontario Court of Appeal released an important decision in the case of Addison Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Ltd. about the liability of franchisors» associates for bad faith conduct.

2009)(broad arbitration clause permits Panel to impose sanctions and attorneys» fees for «bad faith conduct» in FAA arbitration).