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

THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH” (Pennsylvania Superior Court) (Non-Precedential)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In this unpublished opinion, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court addressed whether “institutional bad faith” states a private cause of action under Pennsylvania law.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)

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

DISAGREEMENT WITH AN EXPERT’S CONCLUSIONS, STANDING ALONE, IS NOT BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

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.)

JULY 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH WHERE INSURER’S DENIAL WAS BASED ON AN EXPLICIT AND CLEAR POLICY EXCLUSION, AND CONFUSION OVER NATURE OF CLAIM DID NOT CONSTITUTE BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

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.)

JANUARY 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: UNSUCCESSFUL, BUT REASONABLE, LEGAL ARGUMENT CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR A BAD FAITH CLAIM (Western District)

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.)

 

 

JUNE 2016 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT RECOMMENDS ALLOWING INSURED TO REPLEAD ITS BAD FAITH CLAIM FOR UNREASONABLE POLICY INTERPRETATION, WHICH INTERPRETATION WAS LATER ABANDONED BY INSURER (Middle District)

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.)

JANUARY 2016 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT REFUSES TO GRANT INSUREDS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AFTER DETERMINING THAT INSURER DID NOT ACT IN BAD FAITH BY RELYING ON UNPERSUASIVE LEGAL POSITION (Middle District)

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.)

 

OCTOBER 2015 BAD FAITH CASES: ASSUMING THAT SUBJECTIVE BAD FAITH IS THE STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS, THE INSURER’S INTERPRETATION OF GOVERNING CASE LAW DURING LITIGATION WAS REASONABLE, EVEN IF WRONG (Middle District)

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.)

MAY 2015 BAD FAITH CASES: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED BECAUSE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DECISION ESTABLISHED REASONABLE BASIS FOR INSURER’S APPLICATION OF EXCLUSION (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Gibble v. Cincinnati Insurance Companies, the court found that the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in his favor on a bad faith claim, and granted the insurer summary judgment.

In this case, the policy exclusion relied upon by the carrier to exclude coverage was that the person driving the insured’s truck, i.e., the employee-plaintiff in this case, was “without a reasonable belief that they have authority to do so.” The court found that the insurer had a reasonable basis to exclude payment to the an employee of the insured, even if that basis ultimately proves incorrect.

There had been a prior workers’ compensation decision, finding that the plaintiff-employee of the insured was not acting in the scope of employment at the time he was injured, while driving his employer’s truck. The testimony and evidence in that matter provided a reasonable basis for insurer to believe that unless the injured employee was acting within the scope of his employment, he was not permitted to drive the truck; and that the employee knew that to be the case.

This provided the insurer with a reasonable basis to deny coverage, because the employee arguably appeared to lack a reasonable belief that he was entitled to be driving the truck at the time of the accident. Thus, the statutory bad faith claim could not get beyond Terletsky’s reasonableness prong.  Nor was there any evidence in the record of reckless disregard, to meet the second prong.  The court’s finding was further bolstered the plaintiff’s need to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, if the case were to proceed.

Date of Decision:  April 30, 2015

Gibble v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos., CIVIL ACTION No. 14-0739, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57190 (E.D. Pa. April 30, 2015) (Pratter, J.)

MARCH 2015 BAD FAITH CASES: EVEN WHERE COURT RULES AGAINST INSURER’S INTERPRETATION OF POLICY LANGUAGE, NO BAD FAITH CAN EXIST WHERE THAT INTERPRETATION IS REASONABLE (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Gray v. Allstate Indemnity Company, the insured asserted breach of contract claim and bad faith claims due to the insurer’s alleged wrongful denial and refusal to pay insurance benefits for his fire loss claim, which was the result of vandalism.  The insurer asserted that the property was vacant and unoccupied from the time the last tenant left the property until the time of the vandalism and resulting fire, and therefore, as a matter of law, no coverage was due.  It moved for summary judgment on both claims.

The insurer relied upon a policy exclusion providing: “Vandalism. However, we do cover sudden and accidental direct physical loss caused by fire resulting from vandalism unless your dwelling has been vacant or unoccupied for more than 90 consecutive days immediately prior to the vandalism.”  It further relied upon a policy endorsement which provided that the insurer “shall not be liable for loss occurring [] while a described building, whether intended for occupancy by owner or tenant is vacant or unoccupied beyond a period of [60] consecutive days.”  The insured claimed to have periodically done work on the property, within the 60 and 90 day periods before the vandalism and fire.

The court found the policy terms “vacant” and “unoccupied” to be ambiguous, relying on Third Circuit precedent. It concluded that there were disputed facts “as to whether plaintiff was sufficiently present at the subject property after the tenants moved out … to personally rehabilitate and rebuild parts of the property such that the property was neither vacant nor unoccupied for purposes of the policy.” Thus summary judgment on the breach of contract claim was denied.

As to the bad faith claim, the court reiterated the principles that an insurer “need not demonstrate its investigation yielded the correct conclusion, or that its conclusion more likely than not was accurate.” Nor is an insurer “required to show that ‘the process by which it reached its conclusion was flawless or that the investigatory methods it employed eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusion.’” Rather, “an insurance company must show it conducted a review or investigation sufficiently thorough to yield a reasonable foundation for its action.” Moreover, it is the plaintiff-insured that must provide clear and convincing evidence of bad faith, i.e., “that

the evidence is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable a clear conviction, without hesitation, about whether or not the defendants acted in bad faith,” a standard that likewise applies at the summary judgment stage.  Under that standard, summary judgment is proper “when there is no clear and convincing evidence that the insurer’s conduct was unreasonable and that it knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.”

In this case, the insured’s bad faith claim amounted to an argument that the insurer drafted an ambiguous policy, and then construed the ambiguous language to deny coverage.  The court rejected that argument because the record showed that the insurer “had a factual basis to conclude that the subject property was vacant or unoccupied for more than the specified number of days before the vandalism, and that [the insurer] had a reasonable basis for denying plaintiff’s claim for coverage of the fire loss caused by the vandalism.”

Moreover, as to the policy language, while the court ruled against the insurer’s interpretation of the terms “vacant” and “unoccupied”, the insurer’s interpretation was still reasonable.  In this regard, the court also “found that relevant Pennsylvania state law is unsettled on the matter,” and “[b]ad faith cannot be found where the insurer’s conduct is in accordance with a reasonable but incorrect interpretation of the insurance policy.” A reasonable basis is sufficient to defeat a bad faith claim. Thus, summary judgment was granted to the insurer on the bad faith claim.

Date of Decision:  February 23, 2015

Gray v. Allstate Indem. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-1232, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21109 (M.D. Pa. February 23, 2015) (Mannion, J.)

OCTOBER 2014 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH CLAIM WHERE INSURER CARRIED OUT REASONABLE INSPECTION AND CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT RESULT OF THE INSPECTION FELL WITHIN AN EXCLUSION, & INSUREDS DID NOT OFFER MATERIAL FACTS TO SHOW, EVEN IF WRONG, THAT POSITION WAS UNREASONABLE OR THE RESULT OF INTENT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE BAD FAITH STANDARD (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Focht v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, the homeowner insureds brought breach of contract and bad faith claims centering on a water based loss.  The coverage issue centered on whether the damage at issue was caused by flood damage arising up inside the house, or water penetrating the house during a storm and causing damage from above.  The former was not covered.  The insurer investigated and found that the storm damage in the upper part of the house did not correlate with water damage, but the water damage was consistent with flooding.  The insured’s public adjuster found evidence to support that the water did infiltrate from above.

The court ruled that while a reasonable jury could find for the insureds, there was no evidence to support a bad faith claim.  The insureds’ allegations at most added up to negligence or bad judgment, not bad faith.  That the insurer covered a water damage claim 8 years earlier that was arguably excluded, did not help the insureds make out a case.

Even if the exclusion had applied and the insurer paid anyway, “all that could mean is that Plaintiffs received money … to which they were not entitled.”  Such an oversight by the carrier 8 years earlier could not be evidence of bad faith in a separate claim, “when Plaintiffs’ policy specifically excludes the damage that [the insurer] determined was at issue [8 years later] and when there is no evidence in the record that that determination was motivated by dishonesty or a breach of known duty as would be required to establish bad-faith liability under Terletsky.”

In addressing the factual assertions the insureds made to defend against summary judgment, it was significant to the court that a number of facts or issues raised were not actually relevant to the coverage dispute actually at issue, particular observing that the dispute over surface vs. subsurface water was immaterial as neither was covered.  The court also found that the length of time the insurer’s inspector took with the property, 25-30 minutes, did not create an issue where there was no other evidence to indicate it should have taken longer.

Date of Decision:  September 5, 2014

Focht v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 3:12-CV-01199, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124561 (M.D. Pa. September 5, 2014) (Mariani, J.)