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 deliberate choice: no bad faith tort at all
DC courts have taken a notably restrained position here. In Choharis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 982 A.2d 1206 (D.C. 2008), the District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered whether to recognize a separate tort for an insurer's bad faith handling of a first-party claim — and declined. The court reasoned that special protections for policyholders beyond ordinary contract law are a matter better left to the legislature, not the courts.
What's left: contract law, with a real fee-shifting hook
This doesn't leave policyholders without recourse. DC treats every insurance policy as carrying an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the same as any other contract. And there's a genuinely useful consequence: a policyholder can recover attorney's fees in a coverage dispute by showing the insurer acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons — a real, practical lever even without a standalone tort.
How this compares to other jurisdictions
Many states recognize some version of a distinct bad faith tort or quasi-tort, with its own separate damages. DC's approach is genuinely different: by routing the issue entirely through contract remedies and fee-shifting, it keeps the underlying legal theory simpler, even as the practical stakes — particularly the possibility of paying the policyholder's attorney's fees — still give insurers a real reason to handle claims fairly.
What this means practically
The real takeaway is that documentation does real work here. Because the fee-shifting remedy turns on showing the insurer's conduct was vexatious or oppressive — not just wrong — a clear record of your damages and the insurer's response to them is exactly what matters if a dispute escalates. Comparing the insurer's offer against your own complete tally of damages before responding is the practical step this framework supports.