Sample output: Bad Faith Risk Triage

This is an illustrative sample of what the Bad Faith Risk Triage skill produces. Every party, date, document, and fact is fictional — invented for illustration only.

Every output is draft legal work product for review by a licensed attorney. AgentCounsel does not provide legal advice and is not a substitute for a qualified lawyer. A licensed legal professional must review and adopt every output before it is relied upon.

The fictional scenario

Sample Request — bad-faith-risk-triage

Fictional illustration. All parties, facts, figures, and documents below are invented for this example. The example contains no real or invented legal authority.

Please run bad-faith-risk-triage on a first-party property claim file and surface the claim-handling risk themes for coverage counsel.

Matter facts

Insured: Harborview Restaurant Group LLC (fictional).
Insurer: Summit Mutual Insurance Co. (fictional).
The user's role: coverage counsel reviewing the file for the insured.
Policy type: commercial property (first-party).
Claim type: water-damage property loss.
Claim stage: claim filed; partial payment made; coverage dispute emerging.
Jurisdiction: governing law not provided.

Materials provided (fictional claim file)

Adjuster Diary, entries 1-7 — shows a gap of several weeks between two inspection steps with no entry explaining the gap.
Letter B (insurer to insured) — requests additional documentation.
Letter C (insured to insurer) — partial response.
Coverage Letter D (insurer to insured) — explains a partial-payment position.
Email Thread, p.2-3 — internal and external messages on the scope of loss.
Payment Ledger, line 1 — partial payment.

Stated facts

Counsel wants the claim-handling risk themes triaged before deciding whether a claim-handling assessment is warranted.
The file does not contain a supervisor or escalation note.
A completed claims-chronology-builder timeline is available.

Please: surface neutrally framed claim-handling risk themes; flag chronology gaps, communication issues, and missing documents; raise jurisdiction-specific questions for counsel; do not conclude whether bad faith occurred or did not occur; do not decide whether claim handling was reasonable; and do not estimate exposure, damages, or reserves.

What the skill produced

Sample Output — bad-faith-risk-triage

Draft work product for attorney review. Not legal advice. Every party, fact, figure, document, and reference below is fictional and illustrative. This example contains no real or invented legal authority. It shows the shape of the skill's deliverable — not a model answer for any matter.

Capability and Reliance Notice

This is a draft claim-handling risk triage for a qualified, licensed attorney. It does not provide legal advice, conclude that bad faith occurred or did not occur, decide whether claim handling was reasonable or unreasonable, assess extracontractual exposure, damages, or reserves, or apply any jurisdiction's bad-faith standard. Every theme below is a neutral item for counsel to evaluate. A qualified attorney must review it before any claim-handling assessment.

Gates Table

Gate	Status	Source
Policy type	Commercial property (first-party)	User request
User's role	Coverage counsel; insured-side	User request
Claim type	Water-damage property loss	User request
Claim stage	Claim filed; partial payment made; coverage dispute emerging	User request
Jurisdiction / governing law	`not provided` `[verify jurisdiction]` — bad-faith and claim-handling standards are jurisdiction-specific	—
Document set	Adjuster Diary 1-7, Letters B-C, Coverage Letter D, Email Thread, Payment Ledger	Provided file

Risk-Theme List

Theme	Factual trigger	Source	Why an attorney would examine it	Jurisdiction-specific question for counsel
Investigation timeline gap	A gap of several weeks between two inspection steps, with no entry explaining it	Adjuster Diary 1-7	An unexplained gap in the investigation timeline is something an attorney would review	What does the governing jurisdiction expect of claim-investigation timing?
Coverage-explanation clarity	Coverage Letter D explains a partial-payment position	Coverage Letter D	How a partial-payment position is explained should be examined for clarity and consistency	What does the jurisdiction require in explaining a claim position?
Information-request follow-up	Letter B requests documents; Letter C is a partial response; no further follow-up appears	Letters B-C	Whether outstanding items were followed up is an attorney review point	How does the jurisdiction treat information requests and follow-up?
Documentation completeness	No supervisor or escalation note is in the file	Claim file (full review)	Whether the file documents review and supervision is something an attorney would examine	What claim-file documentation does the jurisdiction expect?
Communications consistency	Email Thread p.2-3 discusses the scope of loss	Email Thread p.2-3	Whether scope-of-loss communications are consistent with the coverage letters should be reviewed	How does the jurisdiction treat communication consistency in claim handling?

Chronology Gaps

An unexplained gap of several weeks between two inspection steps in the Adjuster Diary (entries 1-7).
No entry showing follow-up after the partial response in Letter C.
See the completed claims-chronology-builder timeline for the full sequence; one email date is [date unknown].

Communication Issues

The consistency between Coverage Letter D's partial-payment explanation and the scope-of-loss discussion in the Email Thread should be checked.
Whether the insured was kept informed during the investigation-timeline gap is not found in the file.

Missing Documents

A supervisor or escalation note — not found in the file.
Any follow-up correspondence after Letter C — not found.
The proof-of-loss form referenced in Letter B — not provided.

Questions for Counsel

The governing jurisdiction's claim-handling and bad-faith standards — these must be supplied and applied by the attorney; this triage states none.
Whether the identified themes warrant a full claim-handling assessment.
Whether additional claim-file documents should be obtained before any assessment.

Attorney Verification Questions

[ ] Confirm governing law and jurisdiction [verify jurisdiction]; the bad-faith standard is for the attorney to supply.
[ ] Confirm whether the investigation-timeline gap has an explanation outside the provided file.
[ ] Confirm whether supervisor, escalation, or follow-up documents exist.
[ ] Confirm the themes against the complete claim file before any assessment.

Assumptions

Assumed the provided file is the complete claim file for the purpose of marking documents not found — [CONFIRM].
No bad-faith conclusion, no reasonableness determination, and no exposure, damages, or reserve estimate is drawn; every theme is a neutral item for the attorney.