Massive Insurance Bad Faith Verdicts: $145M Colorado Case Signals

From a $145 million Colorado verdict to a decade-long Hawaii battle, juries across America are hitting insurers with punishing damages for denying legitimate claims

When Fermin Salguero-Quijada suffered a traumatic brain injury on a construction site, his insurance company approved emergency care but drew the line at transferring him to a specialized rehabilitation facility. The insurer's reasoning? Cost savings. The result of that decision? A $145 million jury verdict that sent shockwaves through the insurance industry.

This Colorado case isn't an isolated incident. Across the United States, juries are delivering a consistent and forceful message: when insurance companies put profits ahead of their obligations to policyholders, they'll pay dearly for it.

When "Deny, Delay, Defend" Backfires Spectacularly

The insurance industry has long been criticized for employing what critics call the "deny, delay, defend" strategy—initially denying claims, delaying resolution as long as possible, and aggressively defending against lawsuits. While this approach may temporarily improve an insurer's bottom line, recent jury verdicts suggest it's becoming a financially ruinous strategy.

According to legal analysis from the Expert Institute, several landmark 2025 verdicts have exposed the high cost of insurer misconduct when policyholder rights clash with corporate cost-cutting motives. The financial consequences have been severe, with juries across multiple states delivering massive punitive damage awards.

The Biggest Hits: State-by-State Legal Reckoning

Colorado: $145.26 Million Wake-Up Call

The Salguero-Quijada case against NorGUARD Insurance stands as perhaps the most dramatic example of judicial intolerance for bad faith insurance practices. The construction worker's traumatic brain injury required specialized care, and while the insurer covered initial emergency treatment, it refused to authorize transfer to an inpatient rehabilitation facility that could provide the intensive therapy he needed.

The plaintiff's legal team successfully argued that this denial wasn't based on medical necessity—it was driven purely by cost-saving strategies. The consequence of that decision was permanent neurological damage that could have been prevented or minimized with proper care.

The jury's verdict included $60 million in punitive damages alone, a clear rebuke of the insurer's priorities. The message: when you put your financial interests ahead of a policyholder's medical needs, expect to pay a price that far exceeds what proper care would have cost.

Nevada: $114 Million for the "Delay, Deny, Defend" Playbook

Timothy Kuhn's case against USAA demonstrates how quickly trust can evaporate when an insurer changes its story mid-litigation. After Kuhn suffered a traumatic brain injury in a 2018 collision, USAA initially took one position on fault—then unexpectedly reversed course during litigation and refused to settle promptly.

The Nevada jury wasn't buying it. They delivered a $114 million verdict comprising $100 million in punitive damages and $14 million in compensatory damages. The massive punitive component reflected the jury's strong disapproval of USAA's claim-handling tactics. When an insurer appears to be gaming the system rather than acting in good faith, juries are increasingly willing to impose consequences designed not just to compensate the victim but to change corporate behavior.

Texas: Four Years of Waiting Costs $40 Million

Green Acres Baptist Church learned firsthand how frustrating it can be to deal with an unresponsive insurer. After a severe wind and hailstorm damaged the church in April 2020, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company withheld over $4.8 million in policy benefits for nearly four years.

Think about that timeline. A church community, likely using its building for worship services, community programs, and outreach efforts, had to cope with storm damage while fighting their insurance company for the money they were owed under their policy. The jury found that Brotherhood Mutual breached both its contract and its duty of good faith.

The verdict: nearly $40 million, with $35 million in punitive damages. The punitive portion sent a clear signal that making policyholders wait years for legitimate claims is unacceptable. For a church that probably paid premiums faithfully for years, only to face a multi-year battle when they actually needed coverage, the jury's sympathy was evident.

Hawaii: A Decade-Long Fight Ends in $3.1 Million

Retired public school teacher Randall Sugimoto's battle with Farmers Insurance Hawaii illustrates how exhausting and demoralizing insurance disputes can become. After a head-on collision in 2012 left him with serious injuries, Sugimoto filed a $300,000 underinsured motorist benefits claim—coverage he'd been paying for in case he was hit by someone without adequate insurance.

What should have been a straightforward claim turned into a legal battle spanning more than a decade. The Honolulu jury found that Farmers violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing through mishandling, delays, and unfair evaluation of the claim. They awarded $2.8 million in punitive damages on top of compensatory damages, bringing the total to $3.1 million.

For a retired teacher dealing with injuries from a 2012 accident and still fighting for benefits in 2025, the emotional and financial toll must have been enormous. The jury's verdict reflects recognition that sometimes the process itself becomes a form of punishment.

The Legal Principle: Good Faith Matters

These verdicts all hinge on a fundamental principle: insurance companies owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing to their policyholders. This isn't just a nice idea—it's a legally enforceable obligation.

When you pay insurance premiums, you're not just buying a piece of paper. You're entering into a relationship where the insurer promises to be there when you need them most. In exchange for those regular premium payments, the insurer takes on a fiduciary-like responsibility to handle claims fairly, investigate thoroughly, and pay legitimate claims promptly.

Bad faith occurs when an insurer breaches this duty—by denying claims without reasonable justification, delaying payment to pressure policyholders into accepting less, failing to investigate claims properly, or putting their financial interests ahead of the policyholder's legitimate needs.

Why Juries Are Getting Tougher

Several factors appear to be driving the trend toward larger verdicts in insurance bad faith cases:

Increased Transparency: Discovery in modern litigation often reveals internal communications showing that claim denials were motivated by profit targets rather than policy terms. When juries see emails or documents suggesting that claim handlers were pressured to deny claims to meet financial goals, their sympathy for insurers evaporates.

Growing Sophistication: Juries today are more aware of insurance industry practices, partly due to media coverage of major disputes and scandals. The "deny, delay, defend" strategy isn't a secret anymore—it's become part of the public discourse about insurance company behavior.

Economic Stress: In an era of rising costs and economic uncertainty, many jurors have likely dealt with their own insurance frustrations. When they see a case where someone was genuinely hurt and their insurance company made things worse, they're inclined to send a strong message.

Punitive Damages as Deterrent: Juries understand that compensatory damages—meant to make the plaintiff whole—might not be enough to change corporate behavior. Punitive damages are specifically designed to punish wrongdoing and deter future misconduct. When juries see egregious behavior, they're increasingly willing to impose substantial punitive awards.

The Fraud Factor: When the Industry Becomes the Victim

While insurers are facing well-deserved criticism for bad faith practices, it's worth noting that the industry itself suffers from massive fraud that ultimately drives up costs for honest policyholders.

"Operation Gold Rush," the largest U.S. healthcare fraud action ever undertaken in 2025, targeted $14.6 billion in false healthcare claims with estimated losses around $2.9 billion. Over 320 individuals were charged, including doctors who allegedly submitted fraudulent claims to Medicare and other programs.

The Greg Lindberg scheme, spanning North Carolina, Bermuda, and Malta, involved approximately $2 billion and resulted in 2024 guilty pleas for conspiracy and money laundering. Internationally, South Korea detected a record $795 million in fraudulent insurance claims in 2024.

These massive fraud cases highlight the vulnerability of regulators when dealing with sophisticated, multi-jurisdictional schemes. They also show why insurance is expensive—insurers build the cost of fraud into their premiums, meaning honest policyholders subsidize criminals.

The Auto Insurance Squeeze

Beyond property insurance drama, auto insurance faces its own pressures. According to data from SambaSafety, the average severity of auto claims is rising by $300 to $800 per claim on newer vehicles.

The culprits? Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) might make cars safer, but they're expensive to repair. Those sensors and cameras embedded in bumpers and windshields can turn what used to be a minor fender-bender into a multi-thousand-dollar repair job. Vehicle part costs have surged between 3% and 12% over the past two years, outpacing inflation.

Meanwhile, insurers are increasingly declaring vehicles a total loss at lower thresholds—now at 45% to 50% of market value compared to the historical 75%. This shift is driven partly by high salvage bids and operational considerations like repair time, which can lead to expensive rental vehicle costs.

Interestingly, while 83% of property and casualty insurance executives claim they're equipped to use AI, only 40% have actually integrated it into core workflows, according to a ZestyAI survey reported by Risk & Insurance. The industry talks a good game about innovation but appears to be struggling with implementation.

Workers Comp: A Rare Bright Spot

Not everything in insurance is doom and gloom. Data from the NCCI Annual Insights Symposium 2025, reported by The Triple-I Blog, shows that the workers compensation system remains financially healthy. The private carrier calendar year combined ratio held strong at 86 in 2024, and the industry's reserve position was estimated to be redundant by $16 billion.

Lost-time claim frequency declined by 5 points in 2024, exceeding the long-term average. However, both medical and indemnity claim severity increased by 6 points, and motor vehicle accidents remain a concern as their frequency hasn't improved as much as overall claim rates.

What It All Means

The twin pressures of bad faith litigation and systemic fraud are reshaping insurance industry behavior. Insurers can no longer afford to play games with legitimate claims—the financial and reputational costs are too high. At the same time, they need better tools to detect and prevent fraud that drives up costs for everyone.

For policyholders, these verdicts offer both hope and caution. Hope that the legal system will hold insurers accountable when they act in bad faith. Caution that the industry's response to increased litigation costs might be to become even more defensive and risk-averse in ways that could make obtaining coverage more difficult.

The bottom line: insurance works best when both sides act in good faith. When insurers fail to uphold their end of the bargain, juries are making it clear that the financial consequences will be severe—and that message appears to be getting through.

Sources: