Why the first number is rarely the real number
Insurance adjusters routinely open negotiations with a conservative figure, expecting a counteroffer. Accepting that first offer typically closes the claim permanently — there's generally no going back to ask for more later, even if additional injuries or costs surface afterward.
A real tort, confirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court
Arkansas recognizes bad faith as an actionable tort against an insurer. In Cato v. Arkansas Municipal League Municipal Health Benefit Fund, 285 Ark. 419 (1985), the Arkansas Supreme Court confirmed that an insurer may incur liability for the first-party tort of bad faith when it affirmatively engages in dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct to avoid a just obligation to its insured.
A notably strict legal test
Here's what's worth knowing before assuming every low offer qualifies: Arkansas sets a genuinely high bar. The Arkansas Supreme Court has made clear that a bad faith claim requires affirmative misconduct, without a good faith defense available to the insurer — and critically, that mere refusal to pay a claim does not constitute bad faith when a valid controversy actually exists over liability under the policy. In other words, an insurer disputing your claim's value in good faith generally isn't exposed to a bad faith claim just for offering less than you think it's worth.
What this means practically
The real takeaway isn't that every low offer is legally actionable in Arkansas — the standard here is deliberately narrow. What it does mean is that a documented, well-supported counteroffer, paired with a clear record of your actual damages, puts you in the strongest position if the insurer's conduct ever does cross from tough negotiating into genuine bad faith. Comparing the insurer's number against your own complete tally of damages before responding is the practical step this framework supports.