Archive for the 'PA – Coverage Issues' Category

ASSAULT OR BATTERY EXCLUSION ENCOMPASSES ALLEGATIONS AGAINST INSURED FOR ALLEGEDLY CREATING CONDITIONS THAT ALLOWED THE ASSAULT OR BATTERY (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, an insurer won declaratory judgment on coverage based on an assault or battery exclusion. Fineman Krekstein & Harris partner Diane B. Sher and associate Matthew E. Selmasska were successful counsel for the declaratory judgment plaintiff in this action.

The underlying plaintiff was shot in a parking lot, and brought an action against various parties other than the unknown assailant. The underlying complaint went out of its way to make clear that there was no assault and battery count, but only claims for negligence or recklessness against parties whose alleged failures to make the parking lot safe enabled the shooting.

One defendant in the underlying action had a commercial general liability policy with an “Assault or Battery Exclusion” excluding coverage for personal injury damages arising out of an assault, battery, or physical altercation. This exclusion had four subparagraphs defining its scope, which were broad and went well beyond the actual acts of assault, battery, or physical altercation, e.g., coverage was excluded “[w]hether or not [the personal injury from the assault, battery, or physical altercation was] caused by or arising out of an insured’s failure to properly supervise or keep an insured’s premises in a safe condition.…”

The CGL insurer filed a declaratory judgment action that there was no duty to defend or indemnify, nor any duty to defend or indemnify as to any cross-claims for indemnification or contribution against the insured in the underlying action.  It moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The court concluded that “the fact that the exclusion covers acts and omissions in connection with the prevention of an assault or battery means that [the insurer] is not obligated to defend its insured from allegations that the insured’s failure to take certain precautions resulted in [the insured’s] injuries.”

Thus, the court granted the insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on all counts.

Date of Decision: October 2, 2019

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Smithwick, U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 2:18-cv-04797, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171622 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2019).

THIRD CIRCUIT FINDS KVAERNER DOES NOT APPLY TO POLICY USING “EXPECTED OR INTENDED” LANGUAGE TO DEFINE “OCCURRENCE” (Third Circuit)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

While not directly a bad faith case, this Third Circuit decision creates an important annotation to the Kvaerner doctrine. Specifically, after last week’s Sapa Extrusions decision, insureds, insurers, and their counsel must now scrutinize the specific definition of “occurrence” to determine if Kvaerner controls, at least in federal courts applying Pennsylvania law. [It is also realistic to expect that Pennsylvania’s state courts will strongly consider Sapa Extrusion’s persuasive value as well.]

The case involved millions of allegedly faulty products sold by the insured to a window contractor, which were then incorporated into millions of windows. Those windows had to be replaced, and the contractor brought suit against the insured. That case settled for a large sum. The insured sought recovery for the settlement sum against 28 different insurance policies.

The District Court found that there was no “occurrence” under the Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court’s Kvaerner decision and its progeny, and ruled for the insurers. The Third Circuit agreed that nineteen of the policies were subject to Kvaerner’s principles, but nine were not. It sent those nine policies back to the District Court for further analysis on whether there could be coverage.

By way of background, in Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006), Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court established the principle that faulty workmanship is not an “occurrence,” and therefore is not covered under a liability policy. In, e.g., Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Dev. Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. CPB International, Inc., 562 F.3d 591 (3d Cir. 2009), the courts further explained that Kvaerner’s interpretation of occurrence likewise did not encompass the reasonably foreseeable consequences of faulty workmanship. In the 2013 Indalex case, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court explained that Kvaerner did not govern faulty product claims against the product manufacturer for off-the-shelf products purchased by contractors.

As now set forth in Sapa Extrusions, however, Kvaerner only establishes its meaning of “occurrence” based on the specific policy language at issue in that case, i.e., Kvaerner does not automatically apply to all occurrence policies regardless of how occurrence is defined. Looking at the language of all 28 policies in this case, the Third Circuit found that Kvaerner and its progeny did not apply to some of those policies because their language defining “occurrence” differed from the policy language in Kvaerner.

In Kvaener, occurrence was defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Third Circuit called this the “accident definition” of occurrence. Under Kvaerner, this definition measures occurrence by an objective standard of what constitutes an accident, and faulty workmanship cannot objectively constitute an accident by its very nature.

The Third Circuit contrasted the accident definition with the “expected/intended definition” of occurrence. The expected/intended definition defined occurrence “as ‘an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in Bodily Injury or Property Damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the Insured.’” [Emphasis added] This definition is similar to the “injurious exposure definition,” which defines occurrence as “’injurious exposure, including continuous or repeated exposure, to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in personal injury or property damage … neither expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.’” [Emphasis added]

The court found that the expected or intended language created a subjective standard for determining whether an act was an accident, as expressed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s decision in United Services Automobile Association v. Elitzky, 517 A.2d 982 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Thus, the Third Circuit found that the “expected or intended” language in the latter two types of policy definitions took the meaning of occurrence outside the objective rule applied in Kvaerner.

The panel concluded:

(1) “For the seven policies that contain the Expected/Intended Definition of ‘occurrence,’ we hold that the Insured’s Intent Clause triggers the subjective-intent standard from Elitzky. We will vacate the District Court’s decision as it relates to these policies and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”

(2) “And for the two policies that contain the Injurious Exposure Definition of ‘occurrence,’ since they also include the Insured’s Intent Clause, we will vacate the District Court’s decision and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.”

The court took “no position on whether [the insured] may ultimately recover under any of the policies we are remanding to the District Court for more consideration. Given the extensive record and the amount in controversy, the parties should be afforded the opportunity to develop their coverage arguments, including various theories of triggering conditions, under those policies before the District Court in the first instance.”

Date of Decision: September 13, 2019

Sapa Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 18-2206, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27668, 2019 WL 4384187 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2019) (Fisher, Porter, Restrepo, JJ.)

1. POSSIBLE BAD FAITH FOR IMPROPER RESCISSION AND UNREASONABLY INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION, BUT 2. NO BAD FAITH FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS, OR FOR ALLEGEDLY SWITCHING DENIAL THEORIES (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured purchased various life insurance coverages for her son. She answered no to questions about whether he had any chronic health problems requiring periodic medical care. The terms chronic and periodic were undefined, as to, e.g., what kinds of illness fell under this question and what constituted “periodic” treatment. She answered no. Medical records subsequently showed the son some had gastric issues, lymph issues, and had been in rehab for marijuana dependency on two occasions.

The son was shot in the head and killed. The insurer denied coverage and invoked rescission. The insurer took the position that the mother had failed to disclose that he had chronic conditions that required periodic medical care.

The mother brought claims for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer sought summary judgment on the bad faith claims. During discovery, the insurer took the position that the marijuana use, along with lymph and gastric problems met the definition of chronic illnesses needing periodic treatment, though later appeared to back off this position on the lymph and gastric allegations on periodic treatment grounds.

The court observed that the first bad faith element, concerning the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the insurer’s benefit denial, is objective. Thus, if a reasonable basis exists for an insurer’s decision, even if the insurer did not rely on that reason, there is no bad faith as a matter of law. It then described the other bad faith elements, and the burden of proof requiring clear and convincing evidence.

There were four types of bad faith claims at issue in the case:

  1. Refusal to pay insurance proceeds and rescission of the Policies.

The court found that the jury could conclude rescission was unreasonable in determining the son’s marijuana, lymph, and gastric allegations, were reasonable bases to rescind. The court further found that rescinding based on the lymph or gastric issues could go to the jury on intent/recklessness because there was apparently no periodic treatment in the record.

As to the marijuana issue, the mother explained to the insurer why she did not think the son’s stints in rehab constituted periodic treatment. Rescission required a knowing misrepresentation. A jury could find it reckless to conclude that this was a knowing misrepresentation on the mother’s part.

In sum, the bad faith claims could proceed on the rescission issue.

  1. Lack of investigation into the facts regarding the son’s alleged medical conditions.

The court allowed a bad faith claim for an unreasonably inadequate investigation to proceed as well. First, the court stated that an unreasonably inadequate investigation could be a separate ground for bad faith. It noted, however, while the law does require a thorough investigation, that investigation need not be flawless.

The insurer took the position that obtaining medical records was sufficient. The mother argued this was not enough. She set out six detailed steps the insurer failed to take in further drilling down beyond the medical records to get full answers. “While the Court agree[d] that not all the disputed facts identified by Plaintiff suggest bad faith, there is enough evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the factual circumstances underlying Plaintiff’s insurance claims.”

        3. Failure to comply with a Pennsylvania statute and regulation.

The mother also cited failure to comply with specific sections of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulations in connection with the manner of rescission. Assuming arguendo these sections were applicable, the court found the insurer’s claim handling, in how it formally went about rescinding the policies, did not violate those sections.

Moreover, even assuming the UIPA and UCSP were violated, “a violation of the UIPA does not constitute per se bad faith under section 8371.” In this case, “the rescission letter’s language is not sufficient for a reasonable jury to find statutory bad faith, as the letter does not suggest unreasonable behavior on the part of Defendant and there is no evidence that Defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded any unreasonable behavior. At most, any violations of these provisions suggest that Defendant may have been negligent in the preparation of the rescission letter.”

        4.  No bad faith for alleged theory switching.

“Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s constantly changing bases for rescinding the Policies, as well as Defendant’s failure to reference gastroenteritis and lymphadenopathy in its affirmative defenses, are evidence of Defendant’s bad faith. The Court disagrees. There is no evidence that Defendant has constantly changed its basis for rescission—instead, Defendant has asserted since it sent the rescission letter that the rescission was based on misrepresentations about [the son’s] medical history in the applications. And the fact that the specific medical conditions that Defendant claims Plaintiff omitted have changed as the parties engaged in discovery, without more, is simply not evidence of bad faith.”

Thus, the motion was granted in part and denied in part.

Date of Decision: August 27, 2019

Horvath v. Globe Life & Accident Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania Case No. 3:18-cv-84, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144933 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019) (Gibson, J.)

PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT FINDS NO BAD FAITH WHERE NO BREACH OF CONTRACT (Pennsylvania Superior Court) (Not Precedential)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This UIM case involved two policies, a garage/auto policy and an umbrella policy. The crux of the issue was the insureds’ position that a UIM exclusion in the umbrella policy should not apply.

The same carrier issued both policies. After an accident in 2010, it paid $1 million under the garage policy, but nothing under the umbrella policy. (There is some discussion about the garage policy no longer providing UIM benefits at the time of the accident, though it appears the carrier did pay $1 million under this garage policy.)

The insured brought claims for negligence, fraud, breach of contract, bad faith and claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The contract, bad faith, and UTPCPL claims were dismissed with prejudice on preliminary objections. Summary judgment was granted on the fraud claim, and the insured was non-suited on the negligence claim at trial.

The court found the umbrella policy’s UIM exclusion applied. As no coverage was due under the umbrella policy, there could be no bad faith in denying benefits under the policy. (There could be no UTPCPL claim because the policy was not issued to a consumer for personal, household or family use).

The court also addressed the insured’s claims of bad faith conduct during litigation. The alleged bad faith conduct during litigation consisted of the insurer filing a summary judgment motion to frighten the insured, making ethical claims against the insured’s counsel, acting in a dilatory manner by threatening a Dragonetti action, and slandering the insured’s counsel.

As stated above, the bad faith claims had been dismissed on preliminary objections, and the trial court never addressed these assertions. In upholding the trial court’s dismissal, the Superior Court noted that the summary judgment claim was partially successful, and that the trial court later dismissed all claims against the insurer.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2019

Lewis v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 2115 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3209 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2019) (Murray, Nichols, Shogan, JJ.)

NO BAD FAITH WHERE NO BENEFIT IS DENIED (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this property damage case, a policy endorsement placed defined limits on the scope of covered property damage. For example, the insured might have to pay for work covering 400 square feet to accomplish repairs needed to correct a problem, but the endorsement might only cover 200 square feet out of that 400. In this case, the insurer was only willing to pay for a portion of the insured’s overall repair costs, per the endorsement, but the insured wanted coverage for the entire amount. The insured brought breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair trade practices claims, and was now on his second amended complaint. The insurer moved to dismiss.

There is no breach of contract

Judge Kearney agreed that the insurer’s limited payment comported with the endorsement, and there was no breach of contract. He rejected the notion that the underlying policy could be kept in play, while striking off the endorsement on an unconscionability theory. Unconscionability is an affirmative defense and not a cause of action. Thus, the insured could not use this theory as a plaintiff. The court also rejected the insured’s reasonable expectations argument in refusing to rewrite the policy and strike the endorsement.

Although not pleaded in either the original complaint or two subsequent amendments, the insured argued against dismissal on the basis that a key word in the endorsement was ambiguous. Construing that ambiguity for the insured would purportedly allow for broader coverage. The court gave leave for another amendment, with the admonition to the insured and counsel that any amendment asserting this new position had to comply with Rule 11.

There is no actionable bad faith claim when there is no denial of a benefit

On the bad faith claim:

  1. The court could not infer the insurer lacked a reasonable basis to deny benefits, or acted with intent or reckless disregard in doing so. The insured himself alleged that benefits were not denied on the policy with the endorsement, only that the endorsement should be stripped from the policy, which would then allow additional benefits. As the court rejected that position, no benefits were denied under the policy as actually written.

The court noted that leave was given to replead the contract claim on the new ambiguity theory. Judge Kearney extended this possibility to re-pleading the bad faith on an ambiguity theory, if such a claim could be properly pleaded. He reminded the insured, however, that simply re-pleading the breach of contract on the basis of ambiguity “does not automatically equal statutory bad faith.”

  1. The court observed that “Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute does not extend to conduct unrelated to the denial of a claim for benefits.” To quote Judge Kearney at length:

Bad faith claims do not remedy an insurer’s allegedly insufficient performance of its contractual obligation or to indemnify losses. [citing Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 20, 928 A.2d 186, 198-200 (Pa. 2007).] Our Court of Appeals has affirmed “legislative intent. . . makes clear that the [bad faith] statute was intended specifically to cover the actions of insurance companies in the denial of benefits.” [citing Wise v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 02-3711, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4540, 2005 WL 670697 (E.D. Pa. Mar 22, 2005), aff’d, 459 F.3d 443 (3d Cir. 2006).] The General Assembly did not intend bad faith liability to extend to an insurer’s solicitation of customers or to regulate insurance policies generally. [Id.] For example, [the insured] argues [the insurer] acted in bad faith when it bargained with [the insured] for his insurance plan. We cannot recognize a bad faith claim for actions unrelated to the handling or denial of benefits. [The insured] also fails to plead a single fact evidencing delay or unreasonable treatment of his claim other than a disagreement over whether the Endorsement should govern. We cannot locate a fact suggesting a frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay the insurance proceeds. [The insured] does not plead a lack of good faith investigation into the facts or a failure to communicate. Instead, we must disregard conclusory allegations unsupported by facts, including the catch-all “acting unreasonably and unfairly.”

Finally, the court observed that any claim that the carrier interpreted an ambiguous policy term in bad faith would need many more facts than found in plaintiff’s current arguments.

Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claim dismissed, and insured admonished as to nature of any future amendment

As to the putative deceptive conduct in including the endorsement, the court found that the complaint failed to allege intent or justifiable reliance. Thus, the catch-all UTPCPL deceptive practices claim failed, lacking these two necessary elements. Moreover, the alleged claim constitutes nonfeasance (failure to pay), rather than misfeasance, and thus fails on this additional ground.

While leave to amend remained on the table, the court admonished the insured that any new UTPCPL claim based on misfeasance would be scrutinized in light of existing judicial admissions indicating the claim is only one for nonfeasance.

Date of Decision: August 9, 2019

Boring v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1833, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134242 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019) (Kearney, J.)

 

NEW JERSEY FEDERAL COURT WOULD ALLOW PA BAD FAITH CLAIM TO PROCEED ON BASIS THAT INSURER KNEW ITS REPRESENTATIVE MISREPRESENTED THE POLICY’S SCOPE PRIOR TO POLICY BEING ISSUED (New Jersey Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, the insured alleged that promises made in selling a disability policy differed from the terms of the policy itself, to the insured’s detriment. Although a New Jersey federal action, the case involved Pennsylvania law, including the Pennsylvania bad faith statute. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith count, and well as claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and fraud.

First, the court quickly dismissed the separate claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing as subsumed in the breach of contract claim.

As to the bad faith claim, the insured asserted in his brief the carrier was aware of prior misrepresentations by its sales representative about the scope of coverage. Therefore, the insurer could not in good faith enforce the terms of the policy that limited coverage more narrowly that the sales representative’s promises, which had induced the insured to purchase the policy.

The factual basis of these allegations was that the insurer had been sued before on the same basis, and the sales representative’s deposition had been taken where he admitted his conduct.

This was only included in the insured’s briefing on a motion to dismiss. The complaint itself made no reference to the prior suit or the deposition; nor did the insured plead that the carrier was aware of the sales representative’s misstatement before issuing the policy. Thus, this count was dismissed without prejudice, presumably to replead with these allegations included in an amended complaint.

[Note: There is case law indicating that pre-suit misrepresentations are addressed via Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, whereas statutory bad faith is based on post-policy conduct in the handling and disposition of claims made against the policy. An example can be found here.]

The court refused to dismiss a separate fraud count on the gist of the action theory, finding that the fraudulent inducement preceded the contract; however, again, the facts were not adequately set forth and dismissal was without prejudice.

Date of Decision: August 8, 2019

Javie v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., U. S. District Court District of New Jersey Civil Action No. 18-2748, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133123 (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2019) (Vazguez, J.)

TWO THIRD CIRCUIT OPINIONS ON PA BAD FAITH STATUTE : (1) NO BAD FAITH WHERE NO DUTY TO DEFEND; (2) BAD FAITH CLAIM CAN GO FORWARD WHERE JURY COULD FIND: (A) CONTRACT COVERAGE BREACH AND (B) UNREASONABLE CONDUCT IN INTERPRETING POLICY AND DETERMINING LENGTH OF COVERAGE OBLIGATIONS (Third Circuit)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Case 1. No bad faith possible where no coverage or defense due.

In this title insurance case, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the insurer. A summary of the district court’s decision can be found here.

On the bad faith claim, after agreeing there was no coverage obligation and thus no duty to defend, the Third Circuit stated: “Moreover, since the [District] Court correctly concluded that [the insurer] had no duty to defend, there could be no bad faith claim against [the insurer].”

Date of Decision: July 26, 2019

631 N. Broad St. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 18-3094, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22319 (3d Cir July 26, 2019) (Fuentes, McKee, Schwartz, JJ.)

Case 2. After reversing on breach of contract claim, bad faith claim is found actionable based on insurer’s allegedly misrepresenting its contractual duties and failing to reasonably calculate length of its policy obligations, to the insureds’ detriment.        

In this case, the Third Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to the insurer. A summary of the district court’s opinion can be found here.

The matter involved car rental rights under a policy, in the event the insureds’ vehicle was totaled. The Third Circuit reviewed the facts, and recited the following.

The insureds’ vehicle was totaled. Their policy provided up to 30 days for car rental, unless the carrier reasonably determined alternative transportation could be had earlier. However, in practice, the carrier’s conduct allegedly led the insureds to believe that the carrier could cut off the right to rent a car after only 5 days, in the carrier’s discretion, unless the rental was renewed for ensuing 5-day spans. Fearing they would lose their car rental through the carrier, the insureds entered a two-year car lease prematurely; leasing an inferior car due to the carrier’s pressuring them into thinking their rental would end. This, they claimed, resulted in damages to them both in paying more for the lease, and in obtaining a car that was worth less than their totaled vehicle.

The Third Circuit found this conduct arguably constituted a breach of the policy’s express 30-day provision, both in terms of: (1) the carrier’s internal guidelines to its adjusters in setting 5-day rental periods, and (2) the adjuster’s actual conduct toward the insureds in following the 5-day practice instead of the policy’s 30-day language.

The Third Circuit rejected the district court’s finding that the 5-day notices were merely mistakes and miscommunications rather than a breach, concluding this was a matter for the factfinder. The Third Circuit also concluded discrepancies between the 30-day language in the policy, and the 5-day rule used internally by the carrier, should go to the fact finder.

On the bad faith claim, the Third Circuit stated: “While the District Court focused on the fact that the [the insureds] technically received the full 30 days of coverage of the policy, the appropriate inquiry under §8371 is the “manner in which insurers discharge their duties of good faith and fair dealing during the pendency of an insurance claim, not whether the claim is eventually paid.”

The bad faith claim was based on alleged “misrepresentation of … benefits” in correspondence from the carrier, and in the carrier’s “failing to conduct the analysis needed to determine the amount of time its insureds reasonably required to replace their vehicle without terminating [rental] benefits as required by [the] insurance policy.”

In reversing summary judgment on the bad faith claim, the appellate court found that “[a] reasonable fact finder could conclude on this record that the manner in which the claim was handled evidenced … bad faith. However, that conclusion is not mandated by this evidence and there is therefore a genuine issue of material fact as to [the insurer’s] liability under 42 Pa C.S.A. § 8371.”

Date of Decision: August 2, 2019

Stechert v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Co., U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 18-2305, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23243 (3d Cir. Aug. 2, 2019) (Fuentes, McKee, Roth, JJ.)

BAD FAITH CLAIM BIFURCATED AND STAYED; REQUEST TO DEPOSE INSURER’S COUNSEL QUASHED AS COVERAGE COUNSEL COMMUNICATING WITH INSURED IS COMMONPLACE AND DOES NOT MAKE COUNSEL A FACT WITNESS (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this first-party property damage case, Judge Conner addressed a motion to sever and stay a bad faith claim, as well as a motion for a protective order to quash the deposition of the carrier’s coverage counsel, who was also defending the breach of contract and bad faith action.

Motion to Sever and Stay Results in Bifurcation and Stay

Judge Conner first noted the difference between a Rule 21 motion to sever and stay, and a Rule 42 motion to bifurcate, observing that severance results in two separate and distinct actions, resulting in separate judgments. In this case, the insurer had moved to sever, but also included in its motion bifurcation as a form of relief.

“Severance is appropriate when the claims are ‘discrete and separate,’ each capable of resolution without dependence or effect on the other.” Factors include whether the two claims will require different evidentiary proof, judicial economy, and party prejudice. Judge Conner observed the wealth of case law addressing severance and bifurcation in insurance bad faith cases, but noting that the cases go both ways.

As in other cases, the insurer here argued, “irreparable prejudice from premature and potentially unnecessary disclosure of otherwise privileged information, inefficiency in litigating a secondary claim of bad faith that may be mooted by resolution of the coverage claim, and jury confusion and the potential loss of [the insurer’s] chosen counsel if the claims proceed together.”

  1. The court agreed that the breach of contract claim and bad faith claim are separate and distinct, with only minor overlap. For example, “[i]nformation concerning how [the insurer] investigated and evaluated the coverage claim, its claims-handling policies, and its attorney and personnel communications regarding denial of coverage … are simply immaterial to the issue of whether coverage is required under the policy.”

  2. The court also found the prejudice element favored the insurer’s position. The insurer focused on revealing its attorneys’ advice, opinions and strategy as providing an undue advantage in the insured’s contract case, where such information would not otherwise be discoverable. The insured focused on increased litigation expenses.

Judge Conner found “that although both parties have proffered potential prejudice, [the insurer’s] likely injury from denying separation of these claims outweighs the possible increased costs identified by [the insured]. As [the insurer] correctly notes, attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are long-held, venerated components of our legal system. …. Such protections are not absolute, but they should not be disregarded lightly. We do not dismiss [the insured’s] legitimate concern regarding litigation costs, but ultimately conclude that this factor also favors [the insurer].”

  1. On the judicial economy element, the court rejected the notion that a ruling denying coverage would moot the bad faith claim; instead observing that a bad faith claim can exist independently of a coverage denial. [Note: As recently reiterated on this Blog, there is a longstanding issue as to whether statutory bad faith can be pursued in Pennsylvania simply for poor claims handling, if there is no benefit due under the policy.] The court also rejected the notion that the likelihood of more complex discovery disputes if both actions are litigated together requires severance.

After weighing all factors, Judge Conner chose to bifurcate, rather than sever; and to stay discovery on the bad faith claim. He recognized other courts had ruled differently in insurance bad faith cases, but highlighted the fact that each case is unique, that judges have broad discretion, and that in “this” case bifurcation and stay were warranted.

Court denies insured’s request to depose the insurer’s counsel

The insured sought to depose the insurer’s defense counsel in the case, who was also involved in the underlying coverage dispute. The insurer moved to quash the deposition. As the only pending case was now the breach of contract claim, Judge Conner viewed the issue through that prism.

The insured argued that counsel acted as a claim investigator, and was thus a fact witness. However, it offered no support for that position. It sought to depose counsel to obtain his: “’thoughts and reasoning as to why certain information was or was not included in the denial letters,’ knowledge of the cause and extent of the loss, and reasons why ‘certain information was disregarded” and the claim ultimately denied.’” The court found this “either irrelevant to the breach of contract claim, privileged, discoverable through other means, or a combination thereof.”

“Furthermore, that [the insurer’s counsel] authored letters denying coverage and setting forth [the insurer’s] reasons for its denial has no bearing on whether his deposition is necessary on the breach of contract claim. The practice of insurers consulting with their attorney regarding coverage and having their attorney communicate with the insured is quite commonplace and does not transform [coverage counsel] into a fact witness.”

The court further recognized the potential issue that the deposition could result in counsel’s disqualification. This was another reason to quash the deposition in connection with the contract claim. Judge Conner did leave the door open for the insured to reassert its request to depose counsel in the bad faith case.

Dated: July 25, 2019

McFarland, LP v. Harford Mutual Insurance Cos., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-1664, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124038 (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2019) (Conner, J.)

Our thanks to Dan Cummins of the excellent Tort Talk Blog for bringing this case to our attention.

BAD FAITH CLAIM BROUGHT MORE THAN TWO YEARS AFTER NOTICE OF DENIAL DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A property loss coverage claim was dismissed under the policy’s two-year suit limitation provision, requiring that any suit be brought within two years of the date of loss. In dismissing this breach of contract claim, the court reiterated the Third Circuit’s holding that an insurer does not have to show prejudice in enforcing a suit limitation provision.

The insured also brought a statutory bad faith claim, and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing count. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim on statute of limitations grounds, arguing that the policy benefit was denied more than two years prior to suit. (It is well established that the bad faith limitations period is two years).

The insurer relied on a notice of denial, attached to its answer, in moving to dismiss. The insured asserted because this document was not attached to the complaint, it could not be considered on a motion to dismiss. Under the circumstances of this case, the court disagreed.

The court observed that courts handling motions to dismiss “may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff’s claims are based on the document.” Absent this exception, plaintiffs with legally deficient claims could simply omit attaching a document to avoid dismissal of claims that should be dismissed.

The court found the denial referenced in the complaint to be based on this notice of denial  document, and so considered it on the motion to dismiss.  The notice of denial was issued over two years before suit. Thus, the bad faith claim was independently time barred, and was dismissed on that basis.

[Note: This court ruled two weeks earlier that a bad faith claim could proceed even when the underlying breach of contract was dismissed because of a suit limitations provision, i.e., the bad faith claim could proceed even though no coverage was due. A link summarizing that opinion, and the viability of bad faith claims when no coverage is due, can be found here.]

Finally, the court dismissed the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as being subsumed within the breach of contract claim.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2019

Mail Quip, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION No. 19-223, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87923 (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2019) (Kenney, J.)

TWO MIDDLE DISTRICT CASES ON PLEADING BAD FAITH, AT BOTH ENDS OF THE ADEQUACY SPECTRUM: (1) BAD FAITH CLAIM DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGE KNOWING OR RECKLESS DISREGARD OF UNREASONABLE CLAIM DENIAL; (2) INSURED SUCCESSFULLY AMENDS COMPLAINT TO SURVIVE SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

These two recent Middle District of Pennsylvania cases provide guidance at either end of the spectrum on pleading statutory bad faith.

CASE 1: BOTH ELEMENTS OF BAD FAITH MUST BE PLEADED

This case involved a coverage dispute and bad faith claims. The insured municipality sought repayment for a $1,000,000 settlement over a death arising out of an automobile accident involving one of the city’s police officers. The underlying suit included federal constitutional claims.

There were two $1,000,000 policies at issue: an auto policy and a law enforcement policy. The insurer paid $500,000 under the auto policy, but refused payment under the law enforcement policy per an auto exclusion.

The court agreed the law enforcement policy did not provide coverage. However, it rejected an argument that the auto policy payment was limited under a state statute capping tort liability at $500,000. The court found that the cap did not apply to federal civil rights claims. Thus, coverage for the remaining $500,000 was potentially due.

The court, however, dismissed the bad faith claim without prejudice, stating:

Defendants argue that the City’s insurance bad faith claim must fail because, although the City alleged that [the insurers] lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policies, the City did not allege that [the insurers] “knew or recklessly disregarded [the] lack of reasonable basis [when] denying the … claim[s],” as required by law. This Court agrees with [the insurers], and will dismiss the City’s insurance bad faith claim. That dismissal, however, will be without prejudice, and the City may amend its complaint to satisfy the identified deficiency.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2019

City of Williamsport v. CNA Insurance. Cos., U. S. District Court Middle of Pennsylvania No. 4:19-CV-00170, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82667 (M.D. Pa. May 16, 2019) (Brann, J.)

CASE 2: HOW TO DO IT THE SECOND TIME AROUND (PLEADING THE WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, AND HOW)

This case provides an example of an insured sufficiently amending a defectively pleaded first complaint, to survive a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The original complaint was dismissed without prejudice for conclusory pleading, even though it included 29 bad faith averments. The summary of the court’s first dismissal can be found here.

In addressing a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the court restated principles from its prior decision. Unlike the first complaint, however, the court found the following allegations went beyond conclusory pleading:

In the complaint presently before the Court, [the insured’s] bad faith count, Count II, lists 20 allegations of bad faith. … The Court finds that each of these subparagraphs describe who, what, where, when, and how the bad faith alleged in each subpart of ¶73 occurred. … Further, the Court finds that the amended complaint adequately alleges that [the insurer] acted in bad faith, and sufficiently articulates the factual basis of the bad faith claim. Each subparagraph details the factual basis for the bad faith claim. These averments are sufficient to allow this claim to go forward, and the complaint satisfactorily pleads both elements of a bad faith claim, that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy, and that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying the insured’s claim.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2019

Sowinski v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-02352, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87140 (M.D. Pa. May 23, 2019) (Mehalchick, M.J.)