Archive for the 'PA – Delay (Payment)' Category

DENYING COVERAGE AFTER REPRESENTATIVES CONFIRMED COVERAGE IS BASIS FOR BAD FAITH (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, the insured made a water damage claim, as well as claims for roof damages. She hired a public adjuster to pursue the claims. The insured alleged her public adjuster met with the carrier’s adjuster, and the carrier’s adjuster authorized the insured to proceed with remediating the water damage. Five months later, the carrier sent out its own contractor to inspect the insured’s roof, and that contractor informed the public adjuster that the insured’s roof claims were covered.

The carrier subsequently denied all coverage and refused to pay on any claims. Once the insured retained counsel, however, the carrier agreed to pay part of the claim (for water damage).

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith, along with a variety of other claims. (The court allowed a negligent misrepresentation claim to stand against the carrier, rejecting the carrier’s gist of the action argument, on the basis that duties outside the contract were assumed and potentially violated.)

The carrier moved to dismiss the bad faith claim. It asserted that its contractor had no power to bind on coverage, and that it offered to pay the insured’s water damage losses after the insured retained counsel. The court rejected these arguments and allowed the bad faith claims to proceed.

The insured first pleaded coverage was due and her claim was denied. She then specifically alleged that two of the carrier’s representatives agreed coverage was due, establishing that the insurer was without a reasonable basis to deny coverage. This met the first bad faith element.

Next, as to proving the second element concerning the insurer’s intent, plaintiff had alleged the carrier’s two “representatives, upon reviewing [the] insurance claim and/or observing the Property, determined that the damage at issue was covered under the Policy. … These facts, if true, support a finding that [the insurer] knew or recklessly disregarded that it lacked a reasonable basis to deny [the] insurance claim, i.e. that [it] knew, through its representatives, that the damage at issue was covered under the Policy but still chose to deny benefits.”

Eventually offering to pay part of the insured’s claim did not eliminate potential bad faith, as the insured pleaded there was no reasonable basis to deny the entire claim.

The court did agree that the insured could not recover compensatory damages for unpaid insurance benefits under the bad faith statute, but this relief was available under other counts.

Date of Decision: June 3, 2020

Nelson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania 2:19-cv-01382-RJC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97239 (W.D. Pa. June 3, 2020) (Colville, J.)

 

(1) FAILURE TO MAKE PARTIAL PAYMENT NOT BAD FAITH; (2) BAD FAITH POSSIBLE WHERE INSURER ALLEGEDLY KNEW CLAIM WAS WORTH MORE THAN ITS OFFER, AND THAT IT FAILED TO RE-EVALUATE THE CLAIM AFTER RECEIVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insureds’ complaint alleged husband-insured was riding a bicycle when hit by the tortfeasor’s car. The driver’s carrier offered to pay $50,000 towards the injuries, but the complaint alleged this was insufficient in light of the severity of the injuries, and the insureds sought UIM coverage from a set of insurers (though we will treat the claim as against one carrier for purposes of this post). The insureds allege they had $250,000 in UIM coverage, per person, and that both insureds were entitled to coverage.

They also allege they made demand on their UIM carrier. The demand package included information as to liability and damages, and was allegedly provided to a UIM adjuster. The package included the $50,000 offer from the tortfeasor’s carrier. The UIM adjuster made an “initial offer” of $10,000. The complaint alleges the adjuster was aware when making the $10,000 offer that the UIM part of the claim was worth “at least $10,000.00” and that Plaintiffs were unable to respond to this initial offer because Plaintiff [husband] was still receiving medical treatment.”

The complaint alleges that after the initial demand and response, plaintiffs’ counsel provided medical records and lien information addressing the husband’s injuries, condition, treatment and prognosis. Counsel also provided various written and oral demands on the carrier to tender UIM benefits. The demands exceeded $10,000 generally, but at some point did include a request for partial payment of the $10,000. Plaintiffs allege the carrier originally refused to pay the $10,000, but later paid that $10,000 without making any additional offers or payments “despite concluding that the value of the UIM claim exceeded this amount [$10,000].”

The insureds brought breach of contract claims, and a bad faith claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371. The complaint also references the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), 40 P.S. § 1171.5. The carrier moved to dismiss the bad faith claims as well as any claims based on the UIPA.

Three counts alleged identical language for bad faith claims handling, e.g. the complaint included subparagraphs alleging failure “to evaluate and re-evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim on a timely basis, failing to offer a reasonable payment to Plaintiffs, failing to effectuate an equitable settlement of Plaintiffs’ claim, failing to reasonably investigate Plaintiffs’ claim and engaging in ‘dilatory and abusive’ claims handling.”

In opposing the motion to dismiss the claims, the insureds argued that the “bad faith stems from [the insurer’s] untimely and unreasonable offer … failure to properly investigate the claim; and initially refusing to make the partial payment Plaintiffs requested from the adjustor.” The insureds asserted “that upon receipt and review of the settlement package and documentation provided, Defendants recognized that [husband’s] injuries were far in excess of $60,000 (the $50,000 limits paid by [the driver’s] insurance carrier, plus the $10,000 offered by Defendants).” They also argued bad faith because the carrier initially refused to make the partial $10,000 payment, and, for ultimately offering a minimal sum in an untimely manner while knowing the claim was worth far more than the $10,000 offer.

Refusing to Make Partial Payment Not Bad Faith

The court cited Third Circuit precedent for the proposition that “if Pennsylvania were to recognize a cause of action for bad faith for an insurance company’s refusal to pay unconditionally the undisputed amount of a UIM claim, it would do so only where the evidence demonstrated that two conditions had been met. The first is that the insurance company conducted, or the insured requested but was denied, a separate assessment of some part of her claim (i.e., that there was an undisputed amount). The second is, at least until such a duty is clearly established in law (so that the duty is a known duty), that the insured made a request for partial payment.” Pennsylvania Superior Court case law also required that a bad faith plaintiff plead that both parties agreed that the partial valuation was an undisputed amount.

In this case, the plaintiffs did not plead that the insureds requested an assessment of a part of their claim and were denied that assessment. Nor did they allege that “the parties had undertaken a partial valuation and agreed that the amount of $10,000 was an undisputed amount of benefits owed.” All they allege is the insurer made an initial offer, and the insureds initially declined that offer and later requested it be paid. The court found that an “’initial offer’ indicates that an insurer is willing to negotiate, and does not in itself represent evidence of bad faith,” citing Judge Flowers Conti’s 2013 Katta decision. Thus, “to the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to assert that the failure by Defendants to make a more timely partial payment represents bad faith, any such claim fails as a matter of law.”

The Bad Faith Claim Survived on Factual Allegations that the Insurer Knew the Claim was Worth More than it Offered, and the Insurer Failed to Re-evaluate the Claim after Receiving Additional Information

Taking the factual allegations in the complaint in plaintiffs’ favor, the court would not dismiss the bad faith claims. The insureds alleged that the carrier knew and was aware the claim value exceed $60,000 (the tortfeasor payment plus the $10,000 offer). From the subsequent $10,000 partial payment, the court had to infer on the pleadings that the carrier had concluded the claim was worth more than $10,000, and had therefore “refused to effectuate an equitable settlement.” The court stated that “[w]hile this may or may not ultimately support a bad faith claim, it is sufficient for now to defeat Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Further, the complaint alleges that the carrier refused to do additional investigation or re-evaluate the claim even after receiving additional information from counsel about the insured’s injuries. The insurer argued on the motion to dismiss this conduct was reasonable because there was an “understanding” with the insureds that negotiations would be put on hold pending the husband’s medical treatment. The court could not consider this argument, however, as it relied on facts and a defense outside the pleadings. Rather, it could only consider the allegations that there was a lack of good faith investigation into the facts, and the insurer failed to re-evaluate the claim even after receiving new information that merited re-evaluation.

Finally, the insureds confirmed to the court they were not asserting any claims under the UIPA, and that UIPA references in the complaint could be stricken.

Date of Decision: May 4, 2020

Kleinz v. Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:19-CV-01426-PLD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78400 (W.D. Pa. May 4, 2020) (Dodge, M.J.)

 

PLAINTIFFS ADEQUATELY PLEAD DELAY, INADEQUATE INVESTIGATION, AND LACK OF COMMUNICATION TO SUPPORT BAD FAITH CLAIM (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This is one of the few recent cases finding that a bad faith plaintiff met federal pleading standards, surviving a motion to dismiss.

In this UIM case, the plaintiffs alleged the insured husband suffered serious and permanent bodily injuries, requiring ongoing treatment. The tortfeasor’s carrier paid $250,000, and the insureds sought the full UIM coverage limit, $1,000,000, from the insurer. The insurer’s highest offer was $200,000, only made nearly three years after the original claim. The insureds brought breach of contract and bad faith claims.

The complaint alleged the insureds cooperated with the carrier, providing information over a 32-month period, “with the necessary liquidated and unliquidated damages information from which Defendant could fairly evaluate and make a timely and reasonable offer on the claim.” The insureds estimated their damages in excess of $1,000,000, “based on Plaintiffs’ unchallenged medical records, narrative reports, and vocational loss and medical prognosis reports, which they provided to Defendant.” They further alleged the carrier “failed to timely respond or comply with Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for Defendant to fairly evaluate the underinsured motorist claim.”

The insureds focused their bad faith arguments on the insurer’s alleged conduct over the 32-month time period. They alleged the carrier failed to properly respond to the claim and/or failed to evaluate the UIM claim; failed to offer a payment or to pay in good faith; and failed to inform the insureds of its evaluation of their claim. The insureds asserted the carrier “did not have a reasonable basis for delaying and/or denying underinsured motorist benefits or a partial tender of such under the policy” for nearly three years. The insureds labeled the refusal to pay policy limits as frivolous and unfounded, adding that the insurer “lacked a legal and factual basis” for its valuation of the claim.

The insurer moved to dismiss for failing to adequately plead a bad faith claim.

The court first focused on delay. Delay is a bad faith factor, but standing alone does not make out an automatic case for bad faith. In evaluating whether delay might constitute bad faith, “’[t]he primary consideration is the degree to which a defendant insurer knew it had no basis to deny the claimant: if delay is attributable to the need to investigate further or even to simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred.’” (Court’s emphasis)

In beginning his analysis, Judge Jones took cognizance of the potential negative impact of a 32-month window between the claim’s submission and the carrier’s first offer, though again, standing alone this could not prove bad faith. However, as pleaded in the complaint, there were additional factual allegations fleshing out the bad faith delay argument. These included the absence of any facts suggesting the husband was at fault, or that there was any question the UIM policy limit was $1,000,000. The insureds further pleaded: (i) the husband suffered multiple injuries with ongoing expenses; (ii) they provided medical records, reports, vocational loss information and medical prognoses over the 32-month period; and (3) their liquidated and unliquidated damage estimates to the insurer exceeded the $1,000,000 policy limit.

As to the carrier’s conduct, the insureds alleged that during the 32-month period the insurer did not seek an independent medical examination, and did not conduct a records review to properly evaluate the claim. The insureds added that the carrier’s motion to dismiss did not include any argument that the “delay was attributable to the need to investigate further or even to simple negligence.”

On these facts, Judge Jones found the plaintiffs set forth a plausible bad faith claim, focusing on a lack of investigation and failure to communicate. He distinguished this pleading from numerous other cases dismissing conclusory bad faith claims. He stated, “[i]n particular, it is wholly plausible that Defendant did not have a reasonable basis for denying Plaintiffs’ monies owed based upon the information Plaintiffs provided Defendant. Additionally, viewing the time lapse in conjunction with the lack of an independent medical evaluation by Defendant, it is plausible that Defendant knew of, or recklessly disregarded, its lack of a reasonable basis for denying Plaintiffs’ benefits of the policy.”

Judge Jones also rejected the argument that this was merely a disagreement over fair valuation. On a motion to dismiss, the court had to assume the truth of the plaintiffs’ factual allegations. The allegations set out a plausible case the insurer made an unreasonably low offer, or no offer, potentially constituting bad faith conduct. Judge Jones looked to Judge Stengel’s 2017 Davis decision to support this finding.

Date of Decision: April 17, 2020

Lowndes v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-5823, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67620 (E.D. Pa. April 17, 2020) (Jones, II, J.)

 

NO BAD FAITH POSSIBLE WHERE INSURER HAS ANY REASONABLE BASIS FOR ITS CONDUCT; UIPA AND UCSP REGULATIONS DO NOT CREATE BASIS FOR BAD FAITH CLAIMS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This UIM bad faith claim involved allegations of delayed investigation and settlement payment. The insurer moved for summary judgment, which Eastern District Judge Robreno granted.

The court observed that any reasonable basis to deny coverage defeats a bad faith claim, and consultation with counsel can establish a reasonable basis for the insurer’s actions. Negligence or poor judgment do not make out a bad faith case. Further, “[a]n insurer who investigates legitimate questions of insurance coverage is not acting in bad faith, and no insurer is required ‘to submerge its own interest in order that the insured’s interests may be made paramount.’”

Moreover, although bad faith can be proven through unreasonable delays in paying on a claim, “’a long period of time between demand and settlement does not, on its own, necessarily constitute bad faith.’” For example, if the insurer’s delay is tied to its need for further investigation, this is not bad faith.

Judge Robreno’s opinion sets forth a meticulous recitation of the factual history. The key factual issues were the length of time in reaching a settlement and the investigation into what portion of the insured’s injuries were attributable to the accident at issue vs. a separate auto accident in the preceding year.

In analyzing these facts, the court observed that the insureds’ principal argument was that the insurer took 15 months to make a settlement offer. However, the court found this was “not a per se violation of § 8371, and courts have found no bad faith in cases where insurers took the same length of time to evaluate a claim.” (Emphasis in original)

Drilling down with specific calendar calculations by relevant event, Judge Robreno found the length of time attributable to the insurer’s own delay was around 9 months. This was only half of the nearly 18-month period between the first petition to open a UIM file and filing suit. Further, during its investigation, the insurer had “repeatedly asked … for additional medical documentation, repeatedly communicated with Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and provided updates on the progress of the investigation. In the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant lacked any reasonable basis in its investigation.” (Emphasis in original)

UIPA and UCSP regulations not a basis for bad faith here

In a closing footnote Judge Robreno rejects the insureds’ effort to create a claim from the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) or Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UCSP) regulations.

He states, “While recognizing that they do not provide private causes of action, Plaintiff also cites to the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act, 40 Pa. C.S. § 1171, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulations, 31 Pa. Code § 146, which each require prompt and reasonable responses from insurers in response to a claim, as further evidence of Defendant’s bad faith conduct. … However, ‘a violation of the UIPA or UCSP is not a per se violation of the bad faith standard.’ …. Further, both statutes apply to behavior performed with such recurrence as to signify a general business practice. See 31 Pa. Code § 146.1; 40 Pa. C.S. § 1171.5(a)(10). Because Plaintiffs only identify an isolated instance of Defendant’s alleged bad faith conduct in their argument that Defendant violated both statutes, neither is persuasive in showing Defendant lacked any reasonable basis in delaying Plaintiffs’ claim.” (Emphasis in original)

Date of Decision: March 19, 2020

Bernstein v. Geico Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1899, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47798 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2020) (Robreno, J.)

 

INSURED SETS OUT BAD FAITH DELAY CLAIM, AS WELL AS CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This UIM case involved a claim for full policy limits, amounting to $45,000. The insured alleged serious permanent injuries.

Over two years passed from the time the insured gave notice until the time of suit, with the claim neither paid nor denied. The insured filed suit for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim and attorney’s fee claim, and the court denied the motion.

Bad Faith Claim Based on Delay Adequately Pleaded

The court recognized at least two sources of statutory bad faith: (1) failure to pay and (2) delay in making payment. As to the first, “[w]here a claim of bad faith is based on a refusal to pay benefits under a policy, ‘the plaintiff must show that the defendant did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and that defendant knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying the claim.’” As to the second, “[t]o sufficiently plead bad faith by way of delay, ‘a plaintiff must allege that a defendant had no reasonable basis for the delay in coverage, and that the defendant delayed coverage with knowing or reckless disregard for the unreasonableness of its action.’”

The court found bad faith delay pleaded, based on the following factual allegations:

  1. The insurer “was put on notice of [the] underinsured motorist benefits claim in March 2017.”

  2. “In January 2018, [the insurer] waived its subrogation rights and consented to … settlement with the third-party insurance carrier.”

  3. “On March 30, 2018, [the insurer] advised [the insured] that her claim for underinsured motorist benefits was being evaluated.”

  4. “From April to July 2018, the parties communicated regarding scheduling an EUO, which took place on July 9, 2018.” As pleaded, it was the insurer that sought an EUO in July, and the insured asked to move it up.

  5. “On July 26, 2018, [the insurer] advised [the insured] that it would likely require her to undergo an IME, however, [the insurer] never moved forward with the IME.”

  6. “Between August 2018 and February 2019, [the insured] provided medical records to [the insurer], both unsolicited and at their request.”

  7. “Between February and June 2019, [the insurer] did not notify [the insured] as to the status of her claim, and at the time of the filing of the instant Complaint in September 2019, [the insurer] had neither paid [the] claim, nor denied it.”

The court summarized how these factual allegations made out a bad faith claim. The insured repeatedly tried to have her claim evaluated. She complied with requests for information, provided unsolicited information, and inquired as to the claim status. However, “despite having over two years to conduct its investigation, [the insurer] has unreasonably and without justification failed to approve or deny her claim.” Based on these factual allegations, there appears no reasonable basis to delay the claim evaluation, which the court equated with a failure to evaluate. The knowing/reckless bad faith element was met because the insured had given notice to the insurer through her inquiries and providing information that the claim had not been paid or rejected.

The court cited the Ridolfi, Kelly, and Smerdon cases concerning a delay-based bad faith analysis.

Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard Held Irrelevant at Pleading Stage

The court rejected the argument that the factual pleadings had to be measured against the clear and convincing evidence standard at the motion to dismiss stage. The court stated this standard is relevant, e.g., to trial, but not at the pleading stage. Rather, pleadings are governed by the plausibility standard. Thus, the insured “need not ‘establish’ anything at this early point in the proceedings, let alone ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” “Whether sufficient facts will be discovered for [the insured] to survive a motion for summary judgment is unknown and may be addressed at a later date.”

Attorney’s Fees Possible under Bad Faith Statute or MVFRL

Finally, the court refused to dismiss the attorney’s fee claim based on both the bad faith statute, and the possibility that attorney’s fees might be permitted under section 1716 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2020

Solano-Sanchez v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. No. 5:19-cv-04016, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11784 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2020) (Leeson, Jr., J.)

[UPDATED JANUARY 25, 2020] COURT ACCEPTS GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH CONDUCT AS ADEQUATE, BASED ON APPARENTLY LIMITED PLEADING OF UNDERLYING FACTS CONCERNING SEVERITY OF HARM AND LENGTH OF TIME WITH NO PAYMENT, AND LATER DENIES THE INSURER SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SAME GROUNDS AND EXPERT REPORT ON DEVIATIONS FROM INDUSTRY CLAIM HANDLING STANDARDS (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this UIM breach of contract and bad faith case, the insureds were severely injured by a drunk driver. There was $600,000 in UIM coverage. No UIM payments were made for two years and the insured brought suit. The insurer moved to dismiss both counts.

The court first found the plaintiffs adequately pleaded a breach of the insurance contract. Next, the court drew inferences from the complaint’s averments in allowing the bad faith claim to proceed.

Specifically, plaintiffs pleaded severe injuries, through no fault of their own, that could not be fully compensated by the tortfeasor’s insurance. The complaint alleges that two years after the accident, the insurer “had failed to make any payments whatsoever to [the insureds] under the policy’s UIM coverage provision.” The insureds complied with the terms of the insurance policy at issue, giving reasonable notice of the accident and cooperating with the investigation.

“The complaint further alleges that, in addition to [the insurer’s] unreasonable delay in claims handling and its unreasonable failure to pay benefits, [the insurer] has failed to make a reasonable settlement offer, failed to reasonably and adequately investigate their claims, and failed to reasonably evaluate or review all pertinent documentation provided by the plaintiffs in support of their claim for UIM benefits. Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we find that the plaintiffs have stated a plausible statutory bad faith claim….”

Date of Decision: October 24, 2019

Golden v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Company, U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-02425, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183691 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2019) (Saporito, M.J.)

One month later, the court issued an opinion denying summary judgment on both breach of contract and statutory bad faith. On the contract claim, the court stated that the contractual duty of good faith can be breached through a delay in payment of an inordinate and unreasonable time period.  Within the breach of contract analysis, the court looked to such  issues as the insurer’s claims handling and investigation, the insureds cooperation, and the ultimate claim valuation.

On the statutory bad faith claim, the court identified documents produced by the parties concerning the years long claims handling process. The insurer produced a body of documents in support of its claim that it was in constant communication with the insureds, and the insureds submitted other communication documents including demands on the insurer and medical records to support their bad faith position. The court also considered the insureds expert’s testimony opining that “in the context of industry standard for claims handling, [the] investigation, evaluation and resolution of the plaintiffs UIM claims was unreasonable and intentionally dilatory.”

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving insured, the court found there remained a material dispute of fact concerning the alleged failure to reasonably investigate, evaluate, or pay the claim.

Date of Decision: November 25, 2019

Golden v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-02425, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183691 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2019) (Saporito, M.J.)

LONG INVESTIGATION REASONABLY FOLLOWING UP ON “RED FLAGS” IS NOT BAD FAITH DELAY (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Plaintiff’s house burned down. Before ultimately paying full benefits, the insurer conducted a lengthy, detailed, and wide-ranging arson investigation. The insured brought a breach of contract action for the delayed payment, and a bad faith action alleging there was no evidence to support the arson investigation. The court granted the insurer summary judgment on both claims.

First, “where the insurance company has paid the benefits under the policy, the insured cannot maintain an action for breach of contract.” Payment “negates any breach of contract action,” where the insurer has paid full policy limits, and there is no evidence of a failure to compensate. Even if there was a payment delay, there were no damages from that delay in this case.

On the bad faith claim, the court recognized an insurer can conduct investigations of questionable claims without acting in bad faith. “Where an insurer sees ‘red flags’ that cause concern of insurance fraud and prompt an investigation, the insurer has a reasonable basis for investigation, and is therefore not liable for claims of bad faith.” Red flags can include, e.g., (1) an insured’s financial motive in seeking the insurance proceeds, such as debts exceeding income; (2) a fire marshal’s investigating for arson; and (3) an insurer’s investigation revealing that the fire could not have started as the fire department initially believed.

In this case, there were red flags sufficient to warrant the insurer’s lengthy and multi-faceted investigation, and there was no actionable bad faith.

The court further observed that while payment delay can be the basis for bad faith, or a bad faith factor, such delay is only relevant to bad faith where the insurer “knew that it had no basis to deny the claimant.” In addition, “[w]hile delay in paying a claim is relevant to determining an insurer’s bad faith, it is not dispositive, and does not, on its own, ‘necessarily constitute bad faith.’” Moreover, “even if the insurer is solely responsible for the delay, as long as the delay is due to the insurer’s need to investigate further, or even to negligence, there is no bad faith.”

Here, the insured did not produce clear and convincing evidence to establish the insurer knew its payment delay was baseless. To the contrary, the record showed the insurer reasonably believed there were potential grounds to deny the insured’s claim warranting further investigation. The court found the insurer had a reasonable basis to conduct a lengthy investigation, and reasonably pursued all avenues of investigation as new information arose, until it decided to pay the claim after all of those road were finally traveled.

Date of Decision: October 21, 2019

Merrone v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania Case No. 3:18-cv-193, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181450 (W. D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2019) (Gibson, J.)

A CLOSE CALL, BUT FACTUAL CHRONOLOGY TIED TO ALLEGATIONS OF UNREASONABLE DELAY SET OUT PLAUSIBLE BAD FAITH CLAIM (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Stating it was a close call, Middle District Magistrate Judge Carlson found the following well-pleaded allegations sufficient to set forth a plausible bad faith claim, and recommended denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice to later bringing a summary judgment motion. District Judge Mariani adopted this report and recommendation as the opinion of the court.

The Allegations

  1. Defendant … issued a policy of insurance No. K2495825 to Plaintiffs … covering their two automobiles ….

  2. Defendant … charged and collected a premium for underinsured motorist coverage on said policy.

  3. Plaintiffs … paid all premiums requested by Defendant….

  4. The same policy was in full force and effect [at the time of the auto accident at issue].

  5. On or about August 30, 2015, Plaintiff … was involved in a motor vehicle crash which directly caused him to sustain serious and severe life-threatening injuries some of which are permanent.

  6. On August 30, 2015, Plaintiff … was insured for underinsured coverage in the amount of $250,000.00, with stacking (two cars), by Defendant … under policy K2495828.

  7. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff … suffered severe and permanent injuries including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) neck sprain with severe pain and injuries to his cervical spine, more specifically identified as narrowing of disc space at the C4-C5, C5-C6 and C6-C7 with anterior and posterior osteophytes formation and narrowing of intervertebral foramina at the corresponding bilaterally with nerve root compression. Persistent multilevel degenerative spondylosis, degenerative bilateral facet edema at the C7-T1, bilateral foraminal stenosis at the C3-4, bilateral foraminal stenosis at the C4-5 and C5-6, bilateral foraminal stenosis with left foraminal disc protrusion at the C6-7, all of which pain radiates into his upper extremities;

(b) low back pain and injuries to his lumbar spine including degenerative disc disease with sharp shooting pain radiating into his left lower extremity and sciatica pain;

(c) radiculopathy and nerve injuries to the C8-T1 area;

(d) muscle spasms throughout his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine;

(e) severe headaches;

(f) right hip pain;

(g) left ankle pain;

(h) right elbow pain; [*4]

(i) ongoing pain management, physical therapy and chiropractic treatment;

(j) ongoing and persistent pain aggravated by standing, sitting, walking, sexual activity, physical activities and elevating his arms;

(k) sleep disruption.

  1. Defendant .. was promptly notified of Plaintiff[’s] … injuries.

  2. As a result Defendant … after and only after litigation against its parent company … was initiated, began to pay and continues to pay medical payments to Plaintiff….

  3. As a result of the aforesaid incident, Plaintiff … was offered the policy limits by the operator of the 3rd party vehicle.

  4. Plaintiff … made a claim for underinsured motorist coverage with Defendant….

  5. Plaintiff …. submitted all the pertinent medical records and bills to Defendant…, indicating the serious physical and economic injuries that he sustained as a result of the crash.

  6. Defendant …refused payment to Plaintiff … of underinsured motorist benefits.

  7. Plaintiff … has performed everything required of him under the policy and is entitled to underinsured motorist benefits from Defendant….

  8. Defendant[‘s] … denial of underinsured motorist benefits was made without any reasonable basis of fact.

  9. Defendant … acted in bad faith in that it did not have a reasonable basis for denying underinsured motorist benefits under the policy and the Defendant … knew and/or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying that claim that Defendant:

(a) Failed to give equal consideration to paying the claim as to not paying the claim.

(b) Failed to objectively and fairly evaluate Plaintiff[‘s] … claim;

(c) Failed to raise a reasonable defense to not pay Plaintiff[‘s] … claim;

(d) Compelling Plaintiff … to institute arbitration to obtain underinsured motorist benefits;

(e) Defendant … engaged in dilatory and abusive claim’s handling;

(f) Unreasonably evaluating Plaintiff[‘s] … injuries and loss in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;

(g) Failed to keep Plaintiff … fairly and adequately advised as to the status of the claim;

(h) Acting unreasonably and unfairly in response to Plaintiff[‘s] … claim;

(i) Failed to promptly provide a reasonable factual explanation of the basis for the denial of Plaintiff[‘s] … claim;

(j) Failed to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation and evaluation to Plaintiff[‘s] … claim;

(k) Defendant … violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practice Act §146.5, 146.6, 146.7;

(l) Defendant … violated the Unfair Insurance Practice Act 40 P.S. §1171.5(a)(10) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (xi) (xii) (xiv).

The Analysis

The court found the complaint, “taken as a whole, goes beyond a mere boilerplate recital of the elements of the statute.” These allegations provided a factual chronology, and that “[despite providing [the insurer] with all pertinent medical records and bills, and fulfilling all of their policy obligations, the plaintiffs assert that [the insurer] has unreasonably refused to honor its policy obligations.” The complaint further intertwines these allegations with other bad faith averments, i.e., “unreasonable delay … in beginning to make medical payments”, and only making medical payments after suit was initiated against the insurer’s parent company, despite prompt notice of injuries well prior to suit.

While the averments are “spare,” they “go beyond the type of mere boilerplate allegations that courts have found to be too conclusory to sustain a bad faith claim.” Moreover, Magistrate Judge Carlson would not go beyond the pleadings to accept the insurer’s arguments for dismissal. The insurer asserted that the complaint should be interpreted as actually reflecting the insurer’s “prudent effort on its part to thoroughly examine and resolve a potentially meritless claim….” However, the court found “this argument invites us to go beyond the pleadings themselves and resolve essentially factual questions. This is a task which, in our view, may not be performed on consideration of a motion to dismiss, where we must simply assess the adequacy of the pleadings.”

Thus, the complaint could proceed, without prejudice to the insurer renewing its argument on summary judgment at the close of discovery.

Dates of Decision: July 19, 2019 and August 8, 2019

Vadella v. American States Ins. Co., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Civil No. 3:19-CV-73, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121606 (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2019) (Carlson, M.J.) (Report and Recommendation), adopted in Vadellla v. American States Ins. Co., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Civil No. 3:19-CV-73, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133764 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2019) (Mariani, J.)

PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PREVENTS REMAND; BAD FAITH PLEADED WHERE CASE IS NOT MERELY A VALUATION DISPUTE (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On July 1, 2019, Judge Munley issued two opinions in this UIM bad faith case: (1) finding removal proper; and (2) finding the insured pleaded a plausible bad faith case.

Removal was proper where potential punitive damages could take the case above the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum

Judge Munley ruled that the case would remain in federal court, after removal from state court. The insured allegedly suffered severe personal injuries, and the carrier refused to pay the $25,000 UIM policy limits. The state court complaint sought damages in excess of $50,000, punitive damages, interest, counsel fees and costs.

The court recognized that actual damages were limited to $25,000, and the punitive damage and attorney’s fees claims would have to exceed $50,000 to meet the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. Judge Munley found that “[a] punitive damages award which is double the amount of the policy limit is reasonable and possible in such a case.” As remand is only proper when it appears to “a legal certainty that the plaintiff cannot recover, or was never entitled to recover, the jurisdictional amount [$75,000],” he denied the motion to remand.

The insured pleads a plausible bad faith claim where delays and refusal to pay the sum demanded are not mere disagreements over valuation

Judge Munley observed the insured alleged a severe injury, with damages beyond the tortfeasor’s coverage limits. The insured’s UIM coverage was $25,000, which the defendant carrier refused to pay. Judge Munley concluded the case, as pleaded, was not merely a disagreement over claim valuation, but made out a plausible bad faith claim.

The following averments were sufficient to survive the insurer’s motion to dismiss:

  1. “The amended complaint avers that defendant failed to effectuate a prompt fair and equitable settlement of plaintiff’s claim and compelled her to seek legal redress and commence litigation to recover the benefits to which she was entitled.”

  2. “Further, defendant ignored and discounted the severity of plaintiff’s injuries.”

  3. “Also, defendant did not promptly evaluate the claim, but rather engaged in dilatory and abusive claims handling by delaying the valuation of plaintiff’s claim and failing to pay the claim.”

  4. “The amended complaint also suggests that defendant failed to timely investigate or to make a reasonable settlement offer.”

  5. “Defendant further delayed by asking for authorization to receive medical records which were already in its possession.”

The court also refused to dismiss an attorney’s fee demand under the breach of contract count, as such fees might prove permissible under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act (MVFRL).

Dates of Decision: July 1, 2019

Pivtchev v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:19cv150, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109378 (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2019) (Munley, J.)

Pivtchev v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:19cv150, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109377 (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2019) (Munley, J.)

SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMS DEFENSE VERDICT THAT 10 MONTH NEGOTIATION/INVESTIGATION PERIOD DID NOT AMOUNT TO BAD FAITH (Pennsylvania Superior Court) (non-precedential)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this UIM case, the insured settled with the other driver for $50,000. The insurer initially determined the injury at issue did not arise from the accident, based on an IME. The insured later aggravated the injury, and his doctor determined the original injury was from the first accident.

The insured demanded the full UIM policy limits ($100,000). The insurer offered $7,500(considering $50,000 had already been paid). Over the next ten months, the insurer increased the offer six times, ultimately paying the $100,000 policy limit.

The insured sued for bad faith. After a six-day bench trial, the trial court found no bad faith under the Pennsylvania statute. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.

The appellate court relied upon the following trial court findings in upholding the defense verdict:

  1. “In this case, the trial court found that [the insurer] never denied Appellant’s claim.”

  2. “Instead, it determined that ‘[b]y all accounts … [the] investigation was vigorous; [the insurer] sought and received numerous medical records, ordered independent medical examinations and sought to reconcile often conflicting or changing information, all the time communicating with [the insured] and his attorney.’”

  3. “It further opined that ‘the ten-month negotiation period under examination cannot be deemed unreasonable’ where it was ‘undisputed that [the insured’s] treatment was off-again and on-again throughout this period, substantiating [the insurer’s] observation that [the insured’s] claim, from a medical standpoint, was a ‘fluid file’ with ongoing developments that complicated the evaluation process.’”

  4. “As such, the trial court concluded that at ‘[e]ach step of the way, [the insurer] acknowledged and credited new information and responded accordingly [during the tenth month period].”

  5. “The trial court also methodically details the procedural timeline of [the insurer’s] six increasing offers based upon the information as it became available … over the 10-month time period involved.”

Date of Decision: April 18, 2019

Camiolo v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 478 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1456 (Pa. Super. Ct. April 18, 2019) (Dubow, Olson, Stevens, JJ.)