Mitchell V. Fortis Insurance Company Case Summary

In the court case Mitchell v. Fortis Insurance Company, there is a dispute of the ruling. The question at hand is that after the break of contract of the insurance company’s service, are the punitive damage charges worthy? The court ruled in favor of Mitchell in a break of contract with Fortis Insurance Company. When Mitchell was turning 18 years old, he had to be insured as an independent. He later found out that he was HIV positive when he tried to donate blood. Fortis argued that Mitchell lied and withheld the actual date of the HIV test, and in the process of the case, Mitchell was not covered by the insurance for about 20 months. Mitchell sued Fortis because they breached his insurance coverage, and also for bad faith towards him and his situation. He did this because the insurance company did not continue to
Another reason I agree with the court’s decision is the fact that Fortis did not cover Mitchell for a period of 20 months. This is a breach of contract, that Mitchell had with Fortis Insurance Company. Even though the two parties where in litigation, Fortis had a preemptive contract with Mitchell that needed to be fulfilled. I agree with the court’s decision of the very steep punitive charges. Even if you are in court against each other, Fortis needed to uphold their side of the contract. It is a warning to other insurance companies, to maintain their contracts, and to continue to cover their people, while the contract is still valid. Fortis Insurance Company was not acting ethically either. They did not want to cover Mitchell after they found out he was HIV positive. While for an insurance company it would be hard to cover a disease like HIV, Mitchell still needs to help and coverage from them. On top of that, Fortis during the 20 months of non-coverage of Mitchell, were not trying to fix the problem, but acted indifferent about the subject. I agree with the court’s ruling in favor of Mitchell and the damages awarded him by