Archive for the 'PA – Claims Handling (unreasonable)' Category

BAD FAITH CLAIM SURVIVES WHERE FACTUAL DISPUTE EXISTS OVER REASONABLENESS OF CARRIER’S POSITION IN DENYING LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS TO INSURED WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insurer denied long term disability benefits to an insured with multiple sclerosis.  She sued for breach of contract and bad faith, and the insurer sought summary judgment on the bad faith claim.  Eastern District Judge Tucker denied the motion, as factual disputes on the reasonableness of the carrier’s position remained undetermined.

Judge Tucker states that :

[1] [The insured] provided evidence that: (1) she has significant family history of multiple sclerosis (maternal grandmother, maternal aunt, and maternal aunt’s son), (2) that she went through documented, extensive testing and evaluation with neurological specialists and had a well-developed record of positive test results and symptoms indicating a long-term disability, and (3) was even approved for a multiple sclerosis medication.

[2][The insurer] then made insurance policy payment decisions based on internal reports and an independent medical examination where [it] did not provide the examiner with her extensive records and the doctor did not review them before directly contradicting her primary care team.

[3] Further, [the insured’s] initial claims were accepted, and [the insurer’s] claim evaluators approved her symptoms and the initial diagnoses by her doctors as falling within their definition of disability.

[4] Once [the insured] officially qualified for long-term disability, [the insurer] began routinely rejecting her claims and apparently became uncertain about a formal multiple sclerosis diagnosis.

[5] With this in mind, [the insured] puts forth sufficient facts to allow a jury to conclude that [the insurer] acted unreasonably, and accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s bad faith claims is denied.

Date of Decision:  September 30, 2021

Young v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 17-5702, 2021 WL 4502783 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2021) (Tucker, J.)

BAD FAITH CLAIM PROCEEDS BASED ON ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, EVEN IF AMENDED COMPLAINTS DID NOT PLEAD COVERED CONDUCT; COURT ADDRESSES LAW OF FAULTY WORKMANSHIP AND COVERAGE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This is case involves bad faith claims and Kvaerner coverage issues, based on damages resulting from the installation of a fuel system.  The insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims, and the insurer moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Surrick sets out the law on faulty workmanship, faulty products, and what constitutes a covered occurrence

Eastern District Judge Surrick does an analysis of the case law on whether faulty workmanship can constitute an occurrence, whether damages solely resulting from faulty products can be an occurrence, and whether the reasonably foreseeable results of faulty workmanship can be an occurrence when the results of that faulty workmanship are damage to other property.

He observes there is no question that faulty workmanship in itself is not an occurrence under Kvaener and its progeny. He also accepts the Indalex principle that damages solely flowing from a faulty product are the result of an occurrence.  Based on clear precedent, however, he rejects the notion that reasonably foreseeable damages to a third party’s property resulting from faulty workmanship constitutes an occurrence.

In the present case, it was unclear whether the damages resulted from a faulty product or faulty workmanship, so the coverage issue could not be determined at the judgment on the pleadings stage.

Bad faith claim allowed to proceed

Judge Surrick likewise found the bad faith claim could not be resolved via a judgment on the pleadings.

The insurer initially denied a defense and coverage, but later issued a reservation of right letter, provided a defense, and brought a declaratory judgment action.  The insurer argued the amended and second amended complaints against the insured provided no basis for coverage, and even if they did, it was still reasonable to deny coverage.

The insured focused on the original complaint, observing that the insurer denied a defense based on the original complaint, before the amended complaints were ever filed.  After the insured protested, the carrier did rescind the original denial and defended under a reservation or rights.  The insured used these facts to support a bad faith claim that the original position was unreasonable.  The insured also asserted the insurer’s investigation “was rushed, incomplete, half-hearted, and faulty, which also supports its claim for bad faith.”

Judge Surrick accepted the insured sufficiently pleaded a bad faith claim based on the insurer’s conduct surrounding the original complaint, and its initial refusal to defend based on the original complaint’s allegations.

 “The Original Complaint, unlike the First or Second Amended Complaints, included various counts and allegations of negligence and gross negligence…. When the complaint asserts an injury which may be within the policy, the insurer is required to defend. … Therefore, where a claim is potentially within the scope of an insurance policy, the insurer who refuses to defend at the outset does so at its peril.”

Date of Decision:  September 30, 2021

Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company v. Gateway Petroleum Technology Inc., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-4863, 2021 WL 4477149 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2021) (Surrick, J.)

(1) BAD FAITH CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTERS IMPERMISSIBLE; (2) BENEFIT DENIAL NOT BASIS FOR UTPCPL CLAIMS; (3) STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM PROCEEDS BASED ON ALLEGEDLY EXCESSIVE PEER REVIEWS, AND BENEFIT DENIALS; (4) COMMON LAW BAD FAITH SUBSUMED IN CONTRACT CLAIMS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involves claims against a carrier for two distinct auto accidents, as well as against two of its individual claim adjusters.  The insured husband alleged serious injuries in the first incident that were exacerbated in the second.  He alleges he was underpaid on the first loss for medical benefits, and raised a UIM claim on the second loss, claiming the same insurer failed to pay benefits due.

The insureds brought breach of contract claims for UIM and first party medical benefits, common law and statutory bad faith claims on the UIM and first party benefits claims, breaches of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims.

Plaintiffs also brought UTPCPL claims against the two individuals, as well as common law and statutory bad faith claims, and a breach of contract claim against one of them.

The defendants moved to dismiss the bad faith and UTPCPL claims as to all of them, and all claims against the individual defendants.

ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTERS FAIL

As to the breach of contract claim against the one insurance adjuster, the court observed that “while insurance adjusters have a duty to their principals and should conduct investigations with propriety, this duty does not create a contractual obligation between the adjuster and the insured.” Thus, only the principal, i.e., the insurer, could have contractual liability.

As to the UTPCPL claims, there were no facts pleaded to support any sort of deceptive or fraudulent conduct. Moreover the failure to pay a benefit is not actionable under the UTPCPL.  Finally, statutory bad faith claims against insurance adjusters are impermissible because an adjuster is not party to the insurance contract. The same reasoning makes common law bad faith claims impermissible.

In sum, as to both adjusters, the court dismissed the claims against these individuals with prejudice. Judge Tucker states they both “worked as claims adjusters … and followed the company’s policies and practices. Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient facts to allege personal misconduct that established reliance between themselves and the Individual Defendants, despite the lack of a contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants, and accordingly, those claims must fail.”

COURT FINDS FRAUDULENT JOINDER AND DENIES MOTION TO REMAND

As it was only the presence of one of the individual adjusters that prevented complete diversity, his dismissal from the case created complete diversity, and plaintiff’s motion to remand was denied. Although courts use the term “fraudulent joinder”, this does not mean what one would typically think of as fraudulent conduct.  Rather, “[j]oinder is fraudulent ‘where there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment.’” In this case, the court simply held that there were no viable claims stated against the non-diverse party, i.e., no colorable ground supporting a claim.

STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM STATED AGAINST INSURER

As to the substance of the statutory bad faith claims against the insurer, Judge Tucker found a plausible cause of action stated in the Complaint’s allegations. The Complaint alleges the insurer and one of the adjusters “conducted seven Peer Reviews with respect to … treatment in order to challenge causation and deny benefits … which is at odds with the intended use of the procedure and can factually support a claim of bad faith. Plaintiffs’ bad faith claims survive summary judgment because Defendants administratively closed Plaintiff’s first-collision-benefits-claim, despite acknowledging and having medical support that his initial injuries were exacerbated by the second collision, and then denied benefits under Plaintiffs’ second-collision-benefits-claim.” Thus, she denied the motion to dismiss.

COMMON LAW BAD FAITH CLAIMS DISMISSED

The common law bad faith claims were dismissed, as the court found them subsumed in the breach of contract claims.

Date of Decision:  September 27, 2021

Holohan v. Mid-Century Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-5903, 2021 WL 4399659 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2021) (Tucker, J.)

Our thanks to attorney Susan J. French for bringing this case to our attention.

ALLEGED “RED FLAGS” NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT BAD FAITH CLAIM; MOTION TO BIFURCATE DENIED (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Eastern District Judge Younge denied the insurer’s summary judgment motion on bad faith, and its motion to bifurcate the bad faith claim.

Plaintiff sought coverage based on auto theft and damage to the vehicle. The carrier investigated the claim, and took the vehicle into its custody during the investigation.  The carrier never paid on the claim.  Rather, it assigned the claim to its Special Investigation Unit (SIU) because of “red flags” it allegedly uncovered. The carrier argued these red flags supported its decision to further investigate the claim and then to deny coverage, making the process reasonable and thus beyond the scope of a bad faith claim.

Summary Judgment Denied on the Merits

Judge Younge gives a thorough exposition of bad faith law, and specifically the law concerning the reasonableness of investigations and red flags.  Despite the carrier’s arguments that its investigation, and denial based thereon, were reasonable, Judge Younge ruled that the carrier’s arguments were insufficient to get summary judgment under this case law.  The insured adduced “several holes” in the carrier’s investigation that could be indicia of an unreasonable investigation, despite the putative red flags.  Further, the record was lacking in evidence that the insured “had any motive to damage, destroy or fake the theft of her Vehicle.”

[Judge Younge cited legal principles from the April 2021 Fuentes case, summarized here, which cited the 2019 Merrone case, summarized here, where “red flags” were sufficient to make to carrier’s investigation reasonable.  For those litigating “red flag” cases, it will be useful to compare and contrast Judge Younge’s Bermudez opinion with these two cases.]

Motion to Bifurcate Denied

In denying the motion to bifurcate, Judge Younge found:

  1. The insurer “failed to establish the level of prejudice necessary to warrant bifurcation.”

  2. “[I]t would appear that the evidence related to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim will overlap evidence presented in relationship to Plaintiff’s insurance bad faith claim.”  “For example, both claims will focus on whether Plaintiff was involved in the theft of her own Vehicle and/or whether Plaintiff made a material misrepresentation to her insurance company in connection with her claim.”

  3. “Defendant’s investigatory process, its interpretation of the evidence and impression of witnesses which would ordinarily be relevant to an insurance bad faith claim will be equally relevant to the breach of contract claim under the facts of this case. Defendant’s reason for refusing to provide coverage for the Vehicle will be at issue in the breach of contract claim.”

  4. “From the perspective of judicial economy, bifurcation of trial on separate claims could prove inefficient and inconvenient.”

  5. “Bifurcation could result in the unnecessary need to call the same witnesses twice to testify before the same jury on two separate occasions which would extend the amount of time necessary for the jury to resolve this litigation.”

Judge Younge did recognize the insurer had some legitimate concerns, and stated: “Based on overlapping evidence and the intertwined nature of the two claims, the prejudice that Defendant will suffer from trying these two claims together remains to be seen. However, to mitigate any potential concerns, the Court could provide curative instructions and/or implement a staged verdict sheet that would ask the jury to resolve the breach of contract claim prior to reaching the insurance bad faith claim. The varying burdens of proof for breach of contract and insurance bad faith could be explained to the jury and described on the verdict sheet. Potentially, evidence related to damages under insurance bad faith, and specifically punitive damages, could be presented to the jury after it resolves issues related to liability. These issues can be fairly addressed at a pretrial conference prior to jury selection.”

Date of Decision:  July 19, 2021

Bermudez v. Progressive Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 19-CV-4085-JMY, 2021 WL 3033757 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2021) (Younge, J.)

COURT ADDRESSES (1) COMMON LAW VS. STATUTORY BAD FAITH STANDARDS; (2) LACK OF CLARITY IN THE LAW AND BAD FAITH; (3) DELAYS IN CLAIM HANDLING AND SETTLEMENT OFFERS; (4) APPLYING THE UNFAIR INSURANCE PRACTICES ACT IN BAD FAITH CASES; (5) AGGRESSIVE DISCOVERY/CLAIM HANDLING DURING LITIGATION; and (6) LOW RANGE SETTLEMENT OFFERS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Eastern District Judge Tucker explains the similarities and differences between common law and statutory bad faith, in granting the insurer summary judgment on the statutory bad faith claim, but rejecting dismissal of the common law bad faith claims.  She observes both types of bad faith are subject to the clear and convincing evidence standard. However, common law bad faith only requires proof of negligent claim handling, while statutory bad faith requires a knowingly or recklessly unreasonable claim denial.

Judge Tucker cites Judge McLaughlin’s 2007 Dewalt case as authority on the negligence standard.  Judge Tucker does focus on the Cowden type of common law bad faith in discussing these standards, i.e., an insurer can avoid a common law bad faith claim for failure to settle within policy limits by showing “a bona fide belief … predicated on all the circumstances of the case, that it has a good possibility of winning the suit.”  This kind of third party insurance bad faith claim was not before the court.  Rather, the facts involved an underinsured motorist claim.

In an earlier decision, Judge Tucker entered judgment for the insurer on the basis the plaintiff did not qualify as an insured under the policy.  The Third Circuit reversed her decision.  While true the policy language did not provide the plaintiff UIM coverage, the Third Circuit found this limitation violated Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL).

On remand, the insured argued that the policy was issued in bad faith because it included language violating the MVFRL.  Judge Tucker rejected the common law bad faith claim on this point.  There was no precedent or binding authority on point before the Third Circuit’s decision, and the carrier’s position, while ultimately incorrect, was not unreasonable. “This matters because an insurer making a reasonable judgment as to coverage in a situation where the law is not clear cannot be liable for bad faith.”

This did not end the common law bad faith inquiry. Once the Third Circuit ruled, making the law applied to the policy crystal clear, this changed the measure of the insurer’s behavior, i.e., at that point the carrier knew it had an obligation to provide UIM coverage. In determining the common law bad faith claim, Judge Tucker stated:

  1. Conduct that postdates the start of litigation can form the basis for a proper bad faith claim.

  2. After the Third Circuit ruled that the Nationwide policy violated the MVFRL, Nationwide did not extend a settlement offer for ten months after the decision.

  3. When Nationwide did present an offer … it was for just $500,000 of the UIM benefits—in exchange for releasing the bad faith and class action claims.

  4. This offer was doubled a week later to $1 million, but it was contingent on a broader release of all disputes related to coverage.

  5. A failure to “promptly settle claims, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy” is considered an unfair insurance practice under Pennsylvania law. 40 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1171.5(a)(10)(xiii).

  6. The [UIPA] also singles out a refusal to “effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which the company’s liability under the policy has become reasonably clear” as a similarly unfair insurance practice.

  7. While a violation of the Unfair Insurance Practice Act (UIPA) does not constitute a per se violation of the bad faith statute, it does point to a material fact that could support a common law bad faith claim. [Judge Tucker observes apparently contrasting case law on this point, quoting some cases to the effect that UIPA violations are not bad faith per se, and another that “the rules of statutory construction permit a trial court to consider … the alleged conduct constituting violations of the UIPA or the regulations in determining whether an insurer, like Nationwide, acted in ‘bad faith.”]

  8. Again citing Dewalt, Judge Tucker states: The fact that Nationwide offered a settlement is also not a safe harbor from a bad faith claim. “Although most Pennsylvania cases finding bad faith do so in situations where an insurer refuses to settle, no case suggests that such a refusal is a pre-requisite for a bad faith claim.”

  9. Judge Tucker concludes that: Given the resolution of the disputed terms in the Nationwide policy by the Third Circuit, Defendant’s refusal to provide an unconditioned settlement for a claim under those terms is enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on the common law bad faith claim.

Thus, the common law bad faith was allowed to proceed. The statutory bad faith claim was not.

The pre-suit conduct, i.e., drafting the policy with a clause violating the MVFRL, certainly could not be bad faith under the higher statutory standards if it did not constitute negligence under the common law standard.  Plaintiff could not show by clear and convincing evidence that the policy language and the carrier’s conduct in following that language was objectively unreasonable at the time, much less in knowing or reckless disregard of some unreasonable conduct.

As to litigation conduct after the Third Circuit had ruled, the insurer pursued aggressive discovery.  [This discovery was essentially the insurer’s claim handling at this point.]  Judge Tucker laid out the details of the insurer’s discovery/claim handling and specific events over the course of discovery/claim handling.  This included the insurer’s making a number of reasonable requests for information and the insured’s creating delays.  The carrier’s zealous, and maybe at times questionable, defense tactics did not equate to bad faith.

Judge Tucker also observed that offers on the low end of a settlement range for subjective damages such as pain and suffering do not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the insurer’s action were unreasonable, knowing or reckless.  These sorts of claims require investigation, and the carrier’s discovery on these issues amounted to standard claim handling.

Judge Tucker next stated that the insurer’s 10 month delay in making a settlement offer, absent other aggravating factors, was “well under periods of time that have been deemed acceptable for statutory bad faith purposes.”

Judge Tucker also found it significant that the insurer “communicated with Plaintiff during discovery, sending multiple document requests and communicating with Plaintiff’s counsel, which is arguably more responsive than the amount of communication Defendant received in response. This too weighs against whether a reasonable jury could rule that Nationwide had knowing or reckless disregard for the deficiency of its position.”

Thus, summary judgment was denied on the statutory bad faith claim.

Date of Decision:  July 14, 2021

Slupski v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, U. S. District Court Eastern District Pennsylvania No. CV 18-3999, 2021 WL 2948829 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2021) (Tucker, J.)

“SPARSE” FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ENOUGH TO “NUDGE” CLAIM “ACROSS THE LINE FROM CONCEIVABLE TO PLAUSIBLE” (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

For the second time in a week, Middle District Judge Mariani denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss a bad faith claim.  Judge Mariani’s June 3, 2021 decision in Signature Building Systems v. Motorist Mutual is summarized here.

This is a breach of contract and bad faith underinsured motorist action.  The complaint alleged the following.

The insured suffered significant injuries requiring ongoing treatment.  The tortfeasor had $15,000 in coverage, but the insured’s UIM limit on her own policy was $250,000.  The insured pursued underinsured motorist coverage against her carrier.

The insured “fully complied with all terms, conditions, and duties imposed upon her by her Auto Policy.” She “’continually’ provided medical records and reports to Defendant, ‘outlining her injuries, special damages, medical expenses, as well as evidencing her physical pain and suffering’ and has cooperated with Defendant ‘in every way throughout the life of her claims.’”

The insured made the following bad faith allegations:

  1. Failing to properly investigate [the] claim upon notification of same;

  2. Refusing to pay [the] claims without conducting a reasonable investigation based upon all available information;

  3. Failing to promptly and objectively evaluate [the] claims;

  4. Unreasonably delaying the objective and fair evaluation of [the] claim;

  5. Causing unreasonably [sic] delay in all aspects of the handling of [the] claim;

  6. Dilatory and abusive claims handling;

  7. Conducting an unfair, unreasonable and dilatory investigation of [the] claims;

  8. Failing to act in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of [the] claim;

  9. Ignoring competent and overwhelming medical evidence substantiating [the insured’s] injuries and resulting disability;

  10. Ignoring competent and overwhelming medical evidence that injuries the [insured] sustained in the subject motor vehicle have not resolved.

The carrier moved to dismiss the bad faith claim, arguing the foregoing was mere boilerplate that did not meet federal plausible pleading standards.  Judge Mariani disagreed.

First he has no problem in finding the complaint sets out an underinsured motorist coverage claim, and the insured fully complied with the policy and her duties in cooperating with the insurer by “continually” providing medical records that laid out the details of her injuries.

Next, Judge Mariani finds the complaint alleges that despite the insured’s compliance, “Defendant failed to properly investigate her claim, refused to pay her but did not conduct a reasonable investigation, and failed to promptly and objectively evaluate her claim but instead delayed evaluating her claim. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s investigation of her claim was ‘unfair, unreasonable and dilatory’ and that Defendant ignored the medical evidence substantiating her injuries and resulting disability.”

This was enough to state a plausible claim. Although the complaint was “sparse with respect to the bad faith claim, the Complaint contains sufficient well-pleaded factual allegations to ‘nudge[ ]’ Plaintiffs’ claim ‘across the line from conceivable to plausible….” [Note: Judge Mariani quotes this same language in his March 2021 Chuplis decision, summarized here.]

For anyone pleading a bad faith claim, or seeking to dismiss such a claim, it is worthwhile to compare this opinion with Judge Pratter’s Brown opinion, summarized yesterday, or the myriad other cases finding the pleading either lacked, or reached, plausibility.

Date of Decision:  June 10, 2021

Dougherty v. American States Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:20-CV-2166, 2021 WL 2383229 (M.D. Pa. June 10, 2021) (Mariani, J.)

BAD FAITH CLAIM PROCEEDS EVEN AFTER CONTRACT CLAIM DISMISSED FOR UNTIMELY FILING (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insurer denied auto theft coverage based on an exclusion.  The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith, and also alleged breach of a fiduciary duty. The carrier moved to dismiss the breach of contract and bad faith claims, and to strike the fiduciary duty language.

The court dismissed the breach of contract claim for failing to bring action within the time period required under the policy.

The court, however, allowed the insured’s bad faith claim to proceed.  The bad faith claim was based on an unreasonable investigation theory.  The court stated:

“On the existing record at this early stage of the litigation, [the insured] states a plausible claim for coverage and, while he will have to prove his bad faith claim by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ … the allegations in the Complaint that [the insurer] failed to investigate his claim and knowingly set the date of loss outside the policy period “may … show bad faith.’ … Because [the] well-pleaded assertions of unreasonable claims processing and investigation adequately state a plausible bad faith claim under Section 8371, dismissal is not warranted and the Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Complaint is denied.”

The court did strike the allegation that the carrier’s breach of fiduciary duty constituted bad faith, observing:

In Keefe v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 218, 227–28 (3d Cir. 2000), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an insurer’s fiduciary obligations to an insured are limited to claims handling and resolution of third-party claims against an insured. “Under Pennsylvania law, a fiduciary duty higher than the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not arise out of an insurance contract until an insurer asserts a stated right under the policy to handle all claims asserted against the insured.” … Keefe has been applied to the cancellation of a life insurance policy and to policyholders’ uninsured and underinsured motorist claims where, like the present claim, the insurer has not asserted a right to resolve third-party claims against the insured. … Accordingly, given [the insured’s] failure to respond to the Motion to Strike, and the weight of precedential authority limiting an insurer’s fiduciary obligations to the resolution of third-party claims against an insured, the Motion to Strike is granted.

Date of Decision:  May 11, 2021

Peltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 21-0005, 2021 WL 1893125 (W.D. Pa. May 11, 2021) (Kelly, M.J.)

INSURER’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW UP ON ITS OWN INVESTIGATION IDENTIFYING AN ACTUAL LOSS, AND THEN REFUSING TO MAKE ANY PAYMENT, PLAUSIBLY ALLEGES BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Eastern District Judge Padova permitted this first party property damage bad faith claim to proceed, finding the complaint’s allegations were not merely conclusory.

The insureds pleaded the following facts. They reported property damage to their insurer. The carrier hired a construction company to inspect the property, determine needed repairs, and calculate the loss.  The contractor found the property’s foundation and structure were damaged, but “did not calculate the amount of the loss because [the insurer] needed to first determine ‘the extent of the corrective work conducted at or related to [a] neighboring property.’”

The insurer allegedly never made that determination, however, and then refused to pay for the plaintiffs’ known damages. The insureds retained their own expert who valued repairs at over $211,000.

Judge Padova found these allegations went beyond the kind of conclusory pleadings rejected by other courts.

He recognized the principle that: “Implicit in section 8371 is the requirement that the insurer properly investigate claims prior to refusing to pay the proceeds of the policy to its insured.”

Here, the insurer allegedly “acted in bad faith by failing to investigate in good faith and disregarding its own expert’s determination that the structure and foundation of the property were damaged.” Specifically, the complaint alleged the insurer retained an expert to investigate the property damage and then disregarded that expert’s damage assessment, “failed to determine the extent of the corrective work conducted at the neighboring property, refused to investigate the loss to determine what it would cost to repair the foundation and building structure of Plaintiffs’ property, failed to ascertain the amount of the loss, and failed to pay Plaintiffs for the damage to the exterior, foundation, and building structure of their property.”

These factual allegations plausibly stated “a claim for bad faith stemming from [a] failure to properly investigate the damage to Plaintiffs’ property prior to denying coverage.”

Date of Decision:  April 22, 2021

Procoppio v. Foremost Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-5184, 2021 WL 1581487 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2021) (Padova, J.)

WESTERN DISTRICT JUDGE WIEGAND ISSUES TWO BAD FAITH OPINIONS: (1) BAD FAITH CLAIM PLAUSIBLE WHERE COVERAGE ISSUES REMAIN OPEN (2) NO BAD FAITH FOR PRE-CONTRACT CONDUCT (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On April 16 and 21, 2021, Western District Judge Wiegand issued bad faith opinions.  In the first case, she allowed the claim to proceed, denying a motion to dismiss. In the second, the conduct at issue did not involve any benefit denial, but only alleged pre-contract deception, which is not subject to Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371.

CASE 1: BAD FAITH CLAIM STATED

In Maronda Homes, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, Judge Wiegand allowed an additional insured’s statutory bad faith claim to proceed, denying the insurer’s motion to dismiss.

The insurer rejected additional insured coverage, asserting (1) that the additional insured endorsement was not triggered through any alleged conduct of the named insured, and (2) that even if triggered, an exclusion applied. The additional insured raised claims for breach of contract, contractual bad faith, and statutory bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss all claims.

Judge Wiegand first rejected the insurer’s argument that the complaint did not allege any wrongdoing by the named insured that could trigger coverage under the additional insured endorsement.  She also found factual issues remained open as to whether coverage was excluded because the work was (1) completed or (2) put to its intended use. This could not be decided at the motion to dismiss state.

Judge Wiegand did dismiss the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing count. “[U]nder Pennsylvania law, a ‘claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is subsumed in a breach of contract claim.’” Thus, “a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ‘separate and distinct from a breach of contract claim’ cannot be maintained because ‘the covenant does nothing more than imply certain obligations into the contract itself.’”

By contrast, Judge Wiegand allowed the statutory bad faith claim to proceed. First, she observed that the policy exclusion at issue remained open and undecided, so the insurer could not argue the coverage denial was per se reasonable based on the policy exclusion language.  She then found the insured’s allegations that the insurer “failed to investigate Plaintiff’s tender of the claims, denied coverage despite cooperatively participating in attempts to settle the Underlying Actions, and rejected settlement offers … within the limits of the Policy … are sufficient at this stage to survive Defendant’s Motion.”

Date of Decision:  April 16, 2021

Maronda Homes, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:20-CV-01526-CCW, 2021 WL 1518009 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2021) (Wiegand, J.)

CASE 2: NO STATUTORY BAD FAITH POSSIBLE FOR PRE-POLICY CONDUCT

The second case involved a first party property damage claim, where a swimming pool popped out of the ground due to subsurface water pressure. A policy exclusion clearly excluded coverage for subsurface water pressure causing damages, but the insureds still pursued the claim.  They alleged that prior to purchasing the policy, the insurer’s agent led them to believe the policy would cover them for damages to in-ground pools “from foreseeable types of harm,” which equated to a promise concerning subsurface water pressure damage being covered.

After the coverage denial, the insureds brought claims to reform the policy to cover “pool popping,” for statutory bad faith, and for violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The insurer successfully moved to dismiss all claims.

First, Judge Wiegand found that the policy could not be reformed based on mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, or fraud.  She further found that this was not a case where the reasonable expectations doctrine would permit reformation of clear policy language.

Second, she dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.  As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear in Toy v. Metropolitan Life, the bad faith statute only applies when the insurer had denied a policy benefit.  Deceptive practices used to induce an insured to enter an unfavorable insurance policy do not fall within the bad faith statute’s ambit.

Finally, because the insureds did not plead justifiable reliance, there could be no UTPCPL claim.

Date of Decision: April 21, 2021

Palek v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:20-CV-00170-CCW, 2021 WL 1561507 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2021) (Wiegand, J.)

BANKRUPTCY COURT PERMITS BAD FAITH CLAIM TO PROCEED, EVEN AFTER BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM DISMISSED (Philadelphia Bankruptcy Court)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This is a rare bad faith case raised before a Bankruptcy Court in the context of an adversary proceeding.

The bankrupt/insureds brought a first party property damage claim against an excess insurer.  It is not fully clear from the record if the insureds were parties to the excess insurance agreement, which appears to be designed to protect a mortgage holder.  In any event, the court held there was nothing in the record that could establish excess coverage was triggered.  Thus, the court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding no excess coverage possibly due that could have invoked the insurance contract’s coverage obligations.

The absence of any benefits being due, however, did not stop the court from analyzing the bad faith claim, and ultimately allowing that claim to proceed.

As discussed many times in this blog, there is a serious issue about whether a statutory bad faith claim can proceed if the insurer has not denied any benefit under an insurance policy, i.e., payment of a first party claim or defense and indemnification under a liability insurance policy. This limitation appears to be the required by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Toy v. Metropolitan Life.  An article addressing this issue can be found here.  See also this January 2020 post, this March 2021 post, and this January 2021 post questioning whether the non-precedential Third Circuit decision in Gallatin Fuels failed to consider Toy in reaching the conclusion that it was possible to pursue a bad faith claim when no policy was even in effect at the time of the loss.

In the present adversary proceeding, the court chiefly relied on Gallatin Fuels for the proposition that statutory bad faith claims can be pursued even where no benefits are due because there is no enforceable insurance contract, solely based on claims of poor investigation practices and possible misrepresentations during the investigation.

The court also relied on Pennsylvania’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations in finding a potential basis for bad faith. In particular, the court cites, 31 Pa. Code § 146.6 (providing “that every insurer shall complete investigation of a claim within thirty days after notification of the claim unless it cannot reasonably be completed in that time. It further provides that if the investigation cannot be completed within that timeframe, every forty-five days thereafter, the insurer shall provide the claimant with a reasonable explanation for the delay and state when a decision on the claim may be expected.”)

Courts approach violations of the UIPA and UCSP regulations differently, ranging from a complete prohibition on considering their violation in proving statutory bad faith cases, to using those violations as evidence of bad faith.  Our May 2, 2019 post summarizes different approaches courts take in considering UIPA and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations.

Most recently on this Blog, we summarized Western District Magistrate Judge Dodge’s December 2020 Kleinz v. Unitrin opinion. Magistrate Judge Dodge found that since the seminal Terletsky opinion in 1994, “federal courts have uniformly rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on UIPA violations to support bad faith claims.” She found that contrary to the insured’s arguments that some federal cases hold otherwise, “for the past 26 years, case law in federal courts on this issue has been consistent.”  Magistrate Judge Dodge cites, among other cases, the Third Circuit’s opinion in Leach, Judge Gibson’s 2019 Horvath opinion, Judge Fisher’s 2014 Kelman decision (while sitting by designation in the Western District), Judge Kosik’s 2007 Oehlmann decision, and Judge Conti’s 2007 Loos opinion.

Some other recent opinions look unfavorably toward using UIPA and UCSP violations to make the statutory bad faith case. See, e.g., Judge Quiñones Alejandro’s December 2020 White Opinion, and Judge Wolson’s April 2020 Live Face decision. In his March 2020 Clapps decision, Judge Darnell Jones notes that while there is no private right of action under the UIPA or UCSP regulations, there might be some circumstances where their violation might be the premise for a bad faith case.

All that being said, the bad faith claim was allowed to proceed in this case, in light of claim handling conduct that clearly troubled the court.

Date of Decision:  April 15, 2021

In Re Lena D. Lewis, Debtor, Lewis v. U.S. Bank National Association, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. AP 18-00240-AMC, 2021 WL 1424721 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2021) (Chan, J.)