Archive for the 'PA – Insurer wrong, but reasonable' Category


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involved a highly disputed factual issue on coverage, with no clear guidance in the case law. The court denied summary judgment on the insured’s breach of contract claim, and rendered a split decision on the two bad faith claims.

The Close Coverage Call

Coverage existed if a roof was damaged by wind, allowing water to enter a building. The issue was whether a tarp could be considered part of a roof. The insurer denied coverage on the basis the tarp at issue was a temporary stopgap when blown off during a windstorm. The insured argued the tarp was sufficiently stable and integrated to be part of a roof system when it was blown off.

The court looked at local and national case law on when a tarp might be part of a more permanent structure, and thus part of a roof. The court found the issue highly fact-driven under this case law, and inappropriate for summary judgment. A jury had to decide the issue after hearing the disputed evidence and expert opinions.

The Bad Faith Claims

On the bad faith claims, the court stated that both denial of a benefit and/or improper investigative practices could constitute bad faith.

[As we have written on this Blog ad naseum, the idea that statutory bad faith covers anything other than benefit denials arguably runs contrary to Pennsylvania Supreme Court case law. In the 2007 Toy v. Metropolitan Life decision, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court strongly appears to state that only denial of a benefit creates a cognizable statutory bad faith action, whereas matters like poor claims handling would be evidence of bad faith. See this article.

A few months later, the Supreme Court seems to confirm this conclusion. In Ash v. Continental Insurance Company, citing Toy, the Supreme Court states, “The bad faith insurance statute, on the other hand, is concerned with ‘the duty of good faith and fair dealing in the parties’ contract and the manner by which an insurer discharge[s] its obligation of defense and indemnification in the third party claim context or its obligation to pay for a loss in the first party claim context.’” (Emphasis added)

While it appears highly likely Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court made clear 13 years ago that section 8371 is limited to claims for denying benefits, numerous subsequent opinions conclude that there can be other bases for statutory bad faith. These cases typically do not address Toy or Ash in reaching this conclusion.]

In the present case, the insured allegedly made two separate claims, 19 days apart. The first had to do with wind damage to roof shingles, and the second addressed the issue concerning the tarp and interior water damage.

Bad Faith Possible for Undue Delay

On the first claim, the insured alleged it gave proper notice of loss, and the insurer failed to respond at all to the claim. The insurer alleged it had no notice, but in any event took the position that its denial letter addressed both the roof shingle and tarp claims.

The court found that there was an issue of whether the insurer had constructive notice of the first claim, even without formal notice. The adjuster was made fully aware of the event, but it is unclear if the insurer thought of this as a distinct event or just part of the continuum in a single claim. It was also unclear whether the denial letter actually addressed the shingle damage as such.

Thus, bad faith had to go to the jury. “If a jury were to conclude that Defendant was aware that Plaintiff had made a claim for the April damage, but ignored it, that could be seen as an objectively unreasonable, frivolous, intentional refusal to pay (or to otherwise resolve the claim in a timely fashion).”

[While there are certainly claims handling issues here regarding delay and responsiveness to an insured, this claim ultimately includes the denial of a benefit. Thus, the issue of whether there can be statutory bad faith without the denial of a benefit is not actually before the court.]

No Bad Faith where Governing Law is Uncertain

As to the second claim, the insurer won summary judgment. This gets back to the dispute over whether the tarp constitutes a roof. “An insurer who makes a reasonable legal conclusion based on an uncertain area of the law has not acted in bad faith.” Thus, “[w]ith no binding guidance from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court or the Third Circuit, and numerous fact-intensive cases on the subject, Defendant reasonably interpreted the membrane, and not the tarp, to be the roof. Even if that call is ultimately found to have been incorrect, Defendant did not act in bad faith by denying the claim.”

Date of Decision: March 18, 2020

Harrisburg v. Axis Surplus Ins. Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1213, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48115 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 2020) (Beetlestone, J.)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this UIM bad faith case, the insureds demanded UIM policy limits which the insurer did not pay. The insureds took their case to trial, and the jury verdict far exceeded policy limits. The insureds pursued a claim for bad faith, arguing among other things that the jury verdict could be used as evidence of bad faith.

The court disagreed. Bad faith can only be determined based on the insurer’s conduct in evaluating the claim when it was submitted and on “the information available to the insurer during the claims processing”. The jury verdict was rendered after the insurer had done its claim evaluation. Thus, the jury verdict was not relevant to bad faith.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the insureds had executed some version of an enforceable UIM policy limit sign down, below their liability coverage. The court’s detailed analysis revealed that the insured’s application, which would otherwise have effected an enforceable sign down, was ineffective because it made that decision contingent on another required form that was only signed over one month later. The accident at issue occurred during the interim. The court found that there was no effective sign down, and the UIM limits defaulted to the liability limits, a difference between $300,000 and $750,000.

The insureds claimed that asking them to sign the second document constituted bad faith. The insurer consistently took the position that the second document was not necessary to succeed on the sign down argument; rather, the application controlled and the second document was basically redundant.

Magistrate Judge Rice disagreed with the carrier’s position on the application as stated above, but still found no bad faith:

“Nor does the failure to have [the insured] sign the UIM coverage selection form until [one month after the application] constitute bad faith. [The insurer] consistently maintained that the … application established the UIM policy limit, and the [insureds] had access to all relevant documents at all times. My post-trial disagreement with that determination fails to establish … bad faith.”

Date of Decision: February 18, 2020

Gibson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION No. 18-4919, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27531 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2020) (Rice, M.J.)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involved a wall collapse. The insured and carrier provided each other with expert reports on causation. The carrier’s expert analysis would result in a finding of no coverage under the policy, but the insured’s expert analysis would result in coverage. The insurer denied coverage, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.

After discovery, the insured moved for summary judgment on both counts. The court denied summary judgment on the contract claim, because issues of fact remained on causation that might allow for coverage, but granted summary judgment on the bad faith claim after finding that the insured could not meet her burden to show the insurer lacked a reasonable basis in denying coverage.

In addressing bad faith, the court observed that an insurer can defeat bad faith by showing there was a reasonable basis for its action. The court further made clear that at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff’s obligation to prove its case at trial by clear and convincing evidence of bad faith was a necessary consideration. In this case, even taking the facts in the insured’s favor, the insurer had a reasonable basis to deny the claim.

The insurer’s denial was based on a reputable forensic engineer’s report that determined two causes of the collapse; both of which were excluded under the policy. The insured argued that the carrier should have rejected this report, and instead followed the analysis in the report provided by the insured’s expert. The court found this was not enough to make out a claim of bad faith because “the mere fact that the parties disagree about coverage is not enough to show bad faith.” The court cited Post v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., for the proposition that there is no bad faith “when the plaintiff could only show the parties disagreed about coverage….”

The insured also argued bad faith because the insurer allegedly “ignored the possibility that [the insured’s] house would be demolished.” The court found this irrelevant to the bad faith claim.

“If the collapse was not covered under the insurance policy, [the insurer] would not have been obligated to pay [the insured] regardless of whether her house was later demolished. In other words, whether the house was demolished would have no impact on [the] coverage decision.” Thus, this argument did not go to the reasonableness of the coverage decision itself.

In sum, the insured did not adduce evidence that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for its coverage decision, and summary judgment was granted on the bad faith count.

Date of Decision: January 31, 2020

Hentz v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION No. 19-2007, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17379 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2020) (Sanchez, J.)

THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH” (Pennsylvania Superior Court) (Non-Precedential)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this unpublished opinion, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court addressed whether “institutional bad faith” states a private cause of action under Pennsylvania law. Much like yesterday’s post, the Superior Court emphasized that Pennsylvania bad faith law requires focusing on the case and parties at hand, and not the insurer’s conduct toward other parties or its alleged universal practices. The court also addressed other issues concerning statutory bad faith and Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), among other matters. In this post, we only address all the bad faith and  UTPCPL claims against the insurer.

Factual Background and Trial Court Rulings

The case begins with a home remodeler’s attempt to destroy a bee’s nest in one small section of a house. This unfortunate effort only caused larger problems, contaminating and damaging the house. The chain of misfortune continued when remediation efforts led to more damage, with the home allegedly becoming uninhabitable. At a minimum, all sides agreed some level of reconstruction work was now needed.

The homeowners’ insurer engaged a contractor to fix the original problem. The homeowners eventually challenged the quality of that contractor’s work, which they contended added to the damage. They eventually refused to allow that contractor on site, and unilaterally hired a second contractor to take over. Both the insured and insurer retained their own engineers, who disagreed on the scope of the damage and reconstruction work required.

The second contractor was owned by the insured husband’s parents. The husband himself was the second company’s project manager on the job. The trial court stated that the husband agreed with the position that he “negotiated an oral contract on behalf of … himself and his wife… with himself, as project manager of and on behalf of [the second contractor]” for the reconstruction work. The insurer and first contractor disputed the necessity and cost of the work carried out by the second contractor, as well as other costs.

The trial court ruled for the insurer on breach of warranty, emotional distress, UTPCPL, and bad faith claims, but in favor of the insureds on their breach of contract claim.

There is no Cause of Action in Pennsylvania for Institutional Bad Faith

The insureds argued that institutional bad faith could be the basis for asserting statutory bad faith. Under this theory, a claim can be based solely on an insurer’s policies, practices, and procedures as applied universally to all insureds. The present plaintiffs wanted to introduce evidence to support such institutionalized bad faith conduct. Both the trial and appellate courts rejected this theory.

The Superior Court emphasized that a bad faith action is limited to “the company’s conduct toward the insured asserting the claim.” Thus, “’bad faith claims are fact specific and depend on the conduct of the insurer vis-à-vis the insured.’” The Superior Court agreed with the trial court “that there is no separate cause of action of institutional bad faith.” It stated, that the bad faith statute “authorizes specified actions by the trial court ‘if the court finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured . . . ,’ not to the world at large.” (Court’s emphasis).

The Insurer did not Act in Bad Faith

  1. The policy and procedure manual/guideline arguments failed on the merits.

The Superior Court ruled that the trial court’s findings did not result in a refusal to consider evidence relating to the insurer’s conduct and practices. In fact, the insurer’s manuals, guidelines, and procedures were admitted as evidence, all of which were considered by the trial court. This evidence, however, was not considered as part of an institutional bad faith case. Rather, it was only relevant to determining if the insurer acted in bad faith toward the specific plaintiff-insureds, and not to the universe of all insureds.

In deciding the bad faith issue, when the trial court was presented with evidence of the insurer’s policies and procedures, it “did not find them to be improper when applied to the [insureds’] claim, although not a separate claim concerning ‘institutional bad faith.’” (Court’s emphasis) Thus, the actual plaintiffs could not make out a case for themselves on this evidence because they “failed to establish a nexus between [the insurer’s] business policies and the specific claims … asserted in support of bad faith.”

  1. The insureds could not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.

The trial court found the insurer had not acted in bad faith on other facts of record, and the Superior Court found no abuse of discretion in this ruling. Both courts emphasized the insured’s burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the trial court stated, “[i]cannot be reasonably said, given the facts and evidence adduced at trial, that [the insurer] lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits and/or that [it] knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis to deny benefits…. Mere negligence or bad judgment in failing to pay a claim does not constitute bad faith. An insurer may always aggressively investigate and protect its interests. Particularly in light of the higher burden of proof, specifically the requirement that [insureds] must prove a bad faith claim by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, the record in this case does not support the assertion of statutory bad faith….”

Specifically, the court focused on alleged (i) failures to pay engineering fees, (ii) delays in hiring engineers, (iii) unduly restricting the engineer’s ability to opine, and (iv) instructions that the first contractor and its engineer disregard building codes.

The insurer adduced evidence that (i) it paid engineering fees, (ii) its original decision not to hire an engineer was done based on information provided by the first contractor and a building code officer, (iii) it did agree to hire an engineer once the insureds provided their list of concerns, and (iv) the engineer opined the home was not uninhabitable. The insurer also put on evidence that its adjuster never told the first contractor to ignore the building code, but rather expected the contractor to comply with existing code requirements.

On these facts, the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the insureds failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.

The UTPCPL does not Apply to Claim Handling

Both the trial court and Superior Court concluded that the UTPCPL does not apply to insurer claim handling cases.

Date of Decision: January 14, 2020

Wenk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 1284 WDA 2018, No. 1287 WDA 2018, No. 1288 WDA 2018, 2020 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 178 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2020) (Lazarus, Olson, Shogan, JJ.) (non-precedential)

The January 14, 2020 decision was not a final disposition, and a subsequent opinion was filed on February 7, 2020, attached here, which appears to be identical to the January 14, 2020 opinion.

Our thanks to Daniel Cummins of the excellent Tort Talk blog for brining this case to our attention.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured claimed lost wages resulting from an auto accident that reduced his ability to work full time. The insurer’s examining physician concluded the insured could work full time. The insurer denied the claim.

The insured brought suit. The insurer moved to dismiss all claims. The court analyzed each of the potential claims in the complaint, including a bad faith claim.

The court observed the two elements of statutory bad faith, i.e., a knowing or reckless decision to unreasonably deny benefits. The court also apparently included a showing of self-interest or ill will as a third element. [Per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2017 Rancosky decision, however, a showing of self-interest or ill will may be evidence of the second bad faith element, but is not itself a third required element.]

The court found that the insured failed to set out a bad faith claim. The complaint alleged “the insurer relied on the findings of its own medical professional that [the insured] was able to return to work full time. While [the insured] might disagree with the doctor’s assessment, that does not mean his insurer acted without a reasonable basis when it denied [the] work loss benefits. Accordingly, the facts plead in the Complaint, without more, fail to show [the] insurer acted in bad faith when it denied his claim.”

The claims were dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Date of Decision: December 9, 2019

Elansari v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 2:19-cv-03404-JDW, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211369, 2019 WL 6698209 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2019) (Wolson, J.)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, the plaintiff leased office space to the insured for day-to-day use. In exchange for a rent reduction, the insured agreed to store corporate documents and other assets belonging to the plaintiff in a secured filing cabinet on the property. During a later cleaning and reorganizing project undertaken by the insured, the contents in the filing cabinet were mistakenly disposed of. Plaintiff’s accountant estimated the intrinsic value of the filing cabinet contents at $262,045.

Defendant insurer issued an insurance policy to the insured that covered the office space property. The plaintiff took various informal attempts to settle the loss directly with the insurer. The insurer offered to process plaintiff’s claim as a first-party claim, and required plaintiff to submit certain documentation substantiating the loss. Furthermore, the insurer advised plaintiff that the policy limit for a first-party claim was only $100,000.00, well below plaintiff’s $262,045 claim.

Plaintiff advised the insurer that it would be pursuing a third-party claim, upon learning of the $100,000 first-party claim limit. The insurer, however, had already investigated and analyzed coverage for the loss as a third-party claim, and concluded that the insurance policy excluded coverage for property in the care, custody, and control of the insured. Based on this analysis, the insurer had previously issued the insured a denial letter to the insured on the third-party claim.

The plaintiff brought suit against the insured in the Court of Common Pleas. The insurer denied any duty to defend and indemnify, per the above reasoning. The insured later assigned plaintiff its contract and bad faith rights against the insurer. Plaintiff, as assignee, alleged breach of contract and bad faith.

Specifically, plaintiff alleged the insurer refused to cover the third-party claim, and continually treated plaintiff as a first-party claimant. The court granted the defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the contract claim. The court found that an explicit policy exclusion precluded coverage for the third-party claim because the contents of the filing cabinet were in the care, custody, and control of the insured.

As to the bad faith claim, the court stated that statutory bad faith “is not restricted to an insurer’s bad faith in denying a claim, but rather may extend to a variety of actions such as the insurer’s investigative practices or failure to communicate with the insured.” Still, as the court had ruled the insurer “correctly determined that plaintiff’s claim fell within a policy exclusion … [that] conclusion compels the finding that defendant’s denial of coverage does not constitute bad faith.”

Further, to “the extent that plaintiff alleges that defendant willfully misinterpreted plaintiff’s claim to be requesting first-party property coverage rather than third-party liability coverage, the undisputed evidence of record does not support a reasonable inference that defendant acted in bad faith.” The court concluded: “Plaintiff produced no evidence that defendant lacked reasonable basis for its initial understanding or persisted in this position despite clarification to the contrary. To the contrary, the evidence of record clearly establishes that defendant’s initial confusion was nothing more than mere error. Indeed, defendant’s mistaken characterization of the claim as seeking first-party coverage actually subjected it to more liability exposure—up to $100,000—than it would have under the third-party liability provisions. Given the complete absence of bad faith evidence, I find that this claim fails on summary judgment review.”

Date of Decision: June 27, 2017

Wugnet Publications, Inc. v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, No. 16-4044, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98948 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017) (O’Neill, Jr., J.)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insureds won a legal argument as to whether they were entitled to stacking. The insureds later argued that the court should find bad faith against the insurer, on the basis of the insureds’ legal argument prevailing on coverage.

The bad faith claim failed, however, because the carrier’s position was reasonable, even though unsuccessful. “The crux of the Parties’ disagreement – – whether the [vehicle] was added to the [insureds’] policy by endorsement or by the ‘newly acquired vehicle’ clause of the policy – -was resolved in the [the insureds’] favor by this Court, but the authority for both Parties’ positions was reasonably supported by the cases they respectively cited.” Summary judgment was granted to the insurer on the bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: November 28, 2016

Trustgard Ins. Co. v. Campbell, No. 16cv1013, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163606 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2016) (Schwab, J.)




Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Long v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company, the insured brought a bad faith claim based upon the insurer’s allegedly unreasonable interpretation of the policy. The insurer did originally take the position complained of, limiting coverage to $100,000, but eventually dropped that position and came to agreement with the insured on there being greater coverage, $500,000. The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the bad faith claim based upon the insurer’s original position.

The pleadings showed the parties’ agreement that the insurer did for a period of time assert the more restrictive view, but later abandoned this interpretation. The bad faith case “involved an inquiry into the nature, magnitude, and reasonableness of this initial, and admittedly erroneous, interpretation of the policy….”

The court recognized “that an unreasonable, unwarranted, and unjustified interpretation of policy language may form the basis for a bad faith claim, but [there are] particularly exacting standards for such claims.” “Thus, an insurance company’s reliance on an incorrect interpretation of the law will not necessarily yield a finding of bad faith. If that interpretation of the law and policy language was erroneous, but reasonable, a bad faith may still claim fail. …. Likewise, if the insurance company had a number of bases for a legal position, some of which are objectively unreasonable, it may nonetheless defeat a bad faith claim by citing to any reasonable rationale for its action.”

The complaint itself was “spare” in its allegations of bad faith, and in the motion to dismiss process, both parties pointed to facts beyond the pleading in disputing whether the insurer’s position was reasonable. The court recognized that such factual disputes were properly addressed via a summary judgment motion. However, citing Rule 12(e), which allows a defendant to move for a more definite statement of facts in the complaint, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the complaint without prejudice to allow plaintiff to set out a more definite statement in support of the bad faith claim in the complaint.

Date of Decision: May 17, 2016

Long v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., Civil No. 3:14-CV-2428, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65575 (M.D. Pa. May 17, 2016) (Carlson, U.S.M.J.)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Douglas v. Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the court was asked to reconsider its recent decision granting summary judgment in favor of an insurer on a bad faith claim brought by insureds.

The motion arose out of the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, in which both parties sought judgment on the insureds’ claims for bad faith. In granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the court originally articulated two reasons for determining that ample evidence existed to show that the insurer acted reasonably in handling the insured’s claim.

First, the court reasoned that even if the insurer’s rejection form was invalid under case law, the insurer had other justifications for denying coverage. Second, the court noted that even if the insurer relied on unavailing legal theories, no evidence existed that would indicate that the insurer raised these arguments dishonestly or in bad faith. The insureds filed the instant motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court’s two grounds for granting judgment in favor of the insurer were legally erroneous.

While the insureds did not explicitly say so, the court observed that the insureds were claiming that the court’s decision contained a clear error of law or manifest injustice. Specifically, the insureds argued that the court never set forth the justifications that the insurer had in denying coverage. However, the court stated that its prior opinion addressed how issues of fact existed as to whether the insureds had been adequately compensated, and as such, it could not be “frivolous or unfounded” for the insurer to refrain from paying the claim.

Finally, the court reiterated its original position that the insurer’s decision to litigate a reasonable but unpersuasive legal position could not amount to bad faith under the existing case law.

Date of Decision:  December 7, 2015

Douglas v. Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 3:08-cv-01607, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163781 (M.D. Pa. December 7, 2015) (Mariani, J.)



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Douglas v. Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Judge Mariani again identified the issue that there is a split in authority on whether an objectively reasonable basis to deny coverage can per se defeat the first prong of a plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim, and preclude such a claim from going forward on an “objective” basis.  Put another way, if an insurer delays in paying a claim or denies a claim based on specific reasoning which is incorrect, but it is later determined that no coverage was due under the policy for a different reason, is it still possible to bring a bad faith claim even though no coverage was ever due under the policy.

The majority of cases stated stand for the proposition that a bad faith claim could not be pursued in those circumstances, because there is an objectively reasonable basis for denying coverage; and thus the plaintiff/insured cannot meet the first prong of the Terletsky test.  However, as in the prior cases identifying this issue, the court did not have to decide the issue, because there was no actionable bad faith claim in any event, and summary judgment was granted to the insurer on the basis that the insured could not even establish subjective unreasonableness.

In that UIM case the insured argued that the insurer relied upon a rejection form it knew to be invalid in denying coverage.  However, the insurer had other independent justifications for denying coverage even if the form was invalid.  Further, although an earlier decision went against the insurer on this issue, under the Superior Court’s Vaxmonsky decision, the insurer’s arguments distinguishing that case as to the form’s validity, asserted repeatedly during the litigation process, was not unreasonable.

On the later point, the court stated: “It does not matter that these arguments have been unsuccessful in court so far. ‘[T]o recover under a claim of bad faith, 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,’ which requires some sort of dishonest purpose on the part of the Defendant. …. The record contains no reason to believe that Defendant’s legal arguments have been raised dishonestly. Instead, it simply appears that Defendants have hewn to good faith but unavailing legal theories. This does not qualify as bad faith conduct under the standards set forth above.”

Date of Decision: September 29, 2015

Douglas v. Discover Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 3:08-CV-01607, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131601 (M.D. Pa. September 29, 2015) (Mariani, J.)