Charles E. Burnett, Appellant v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellee

Summary

The court held that a liability insurer may owe a third-party claimant an independent tort duty when its claims-handling conduct affirmatively creates a new undertaking, even though the insurer also owes contractual duties to its insured. Burnett presented sufficient evidence that GEICO told him not to clean up the spill because GEICO would do so, delayed cleanup, and thereby may have increased the harm, making summary judgment on the ground that no duty could exist improper. Justice Maassen, joined by Justice Fabe, dissented, arguing that GEICO acted only in furtherance of its contractual duties to its insured and that summary judgment should have been affirmed.