Archive for the 'PA – UIPA & UCSP' Category

(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.)

 

NO BAD FAITH WHERE NO BENEFITS DENIED; NO PRIVATE ACTION UNDER UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS; NO DECEPTIVE CONDUCT IN NOTICE OF NEW ENDORSEMENT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, the court makes clear that “Bad faith claims cover a range of conduct relating to the improper denial of benefits under the applicable contract.” The court quotes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 20, 928 A.2d 186, 199 (Pa. 2007), to highlight the point that statutory bad faith claims must relate to a denial of benefits: “’In other words, the term [bad faith] captured those actions an insurer took when called upon to perform its contractual obligations of defense and indemnification or payment of a loss that failed to satisfy the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in the parties’ insurance contract.’”

This first party property damage case centered on a policy endorsement changing the scope of coverage for access work done to repair leakage.

In 2015, the insureds had a homeowners policy with the carrier. In August 2015, while the policy was in effect, the carrier provided the insureds with notice of a new endorsement that would take effect on September 27, 2015. The notice stated that the new endorsement would potentially reduce coverage, and that “[a]lthough not intended to change coverage, this change could potentially reduce or eliminate coverage depending on how it is interpreted and, in that regard, should be viewed as either an actual or potential reduction in or elimination of coverage.”

The insureds renewed their homeowners policies in the ensuing years, apparently without ever questioning this endorsement. The property damage at issue occurred in September 2018, when the insured homeowners had their plumber do certain repair work to fix a leak, including access work to get to damaged plumbing. The insureds allege that the carrier improperly refused to pay the full bill for the access work, while the carrier relied on the 2015 endorsement in justifying its lower than hoped for payment.

The homeowners brought individual and class action counts, seeking declaratory relief, as well as claims for breach of contract, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulations (UCSP), and for statutory bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss all claims.

Declaratory judgment and contract claims dismissed without prejudice

The insureds argued the 2015 endorsement was unconscionable and should be rendered void; but even if enforceable, it still required greater payment than the carrier made for the cost of the access work. The court, however, dismissed the declaratory judgment claim and breach of contract claim on these grounds, but without prejudice if plaintiffs could plead additional facts to support these claims.

Bad faith claim dismissed without prejudice

The essence of the insureds’ bad faith claims is that the notice accompanying the 2015 endorsement promised greater coverage, but gave less coverage. The court found this could not state a bad faith claim because these claims did not involve the denial of a benefit. “Section 8371 encompasses a variety of insurer conduct, but such conduct must be related to the denial of benefits.” Though “’the alleged bad faith need not be limited to the literal act of denying a claim, the essence of a bad faith claim must be the unreasonable and intentional (or reckless) denial of benefits.’”

In this case the “Plaintiffs’ allegations do not relate to the denial of coverage of the access bill, they relate to the Endorsement notice’s language and how Defendant engaged in alleged misrepresentation because of the purportedly confusing notice.” A “claim that the drafting of policy language was in bad faith is not actionable under Pennsylvania law….” In making this point, the court relied on Mitch’s Auto Service Center, Inc. v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. As stated above, it relied on Toy v. Metropolitan Life for the fundamental point that statutory bad faith claims must include the denial of a benefit.

The court also specifically observed the complaint was “devoid of any facts indicating Defendant lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy.” Likewise, there were no plausible allegations that the insurer “knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis.” The insureds argued that the 2015 notice language could be the basis of a bad faith claim. The court failed to see, however, “how that notice, provided to Plaintiffs three years prior to the water damage here, shows that Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded its alleged lack of reasonable basis in denying Plaintiffs’ entire costs for the plumber’s access bill.”

Still, the court dismissed without prejudice if the insureds could replead a plausible bad faith claim.

UIPA and UCSP regulations claims dismissed with prejudice

The insureds conceded that there is no private cause of action under Pennsylvania’s UIPA, 40 P.S. § 1171.1, or UCSPR, 31 Pa. Code §§ 146.1. The court cited Leach v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 262 F. App’x 455 (3d Cir. 2008), Swan Caterers, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 12-0024, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162305, 2012 WL 5508371 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2012) and Connolly v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., No. 03-5444, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83440, 2006 WL 3355184 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2006) for the proposition that there is no private cause of action under the UIPA or UCSP regulations, and the statute and regulations can only be enforced by the insurance commissioner.

UTPCPL claim dismissed without prejudice

The court dismissed the UTPCPL claim without prejudice, finding the 2015 notice did not constitute a deceptive act, because “the notice’s language explicitly states that the policyholder should treat the change as a reduction in coverage.” The court further found justifiable reliance was not pleaded, as there were no allegations that the insureds relied on any alleged misconduct causing them to purchase the policy.

Dates of Decision: March 27, 2020 (Report and Recommendation) and April 22, 2020 (District Court Order)

Velazquez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-cv-3128, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55854 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2020) (Sitarski, M.J.) (Report and Recommendation), approved and adopted by the District Court (April 22, 2020) (Quiñones Alejandro, J.)

 

NO BAD FAITH: (1) NO BENEFIT DUE; (2) NO ESTOPPEL UNDER THE UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS; (3) AN OVERSIGHT CAUSING DELAY IS NOT BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The court described this as the case of the missing email. The insurance policy at issue covered various cars. The insured emailed its broker to add another vehicle to the policy. The broker claims it never got the email, and thus never asked the insurer to issue an endorsement adding the new car to the policy. As things sometimes go in life, the new car was involved in a collision, damaging another vehicle as well as its own new car.

The insured reported the claim. However, the insured identified its vehicle as one of existing cars listed in the policy, rather than the new unlisted vehicle. The insurer accepted coverage, and even paid damages to the other driver. The insurer later reversed itself on coverage once its appraiser determined the insured’s vehicle was not the car identified in the claim form, and was not covered under the policy.

The police report did list the correct vehicle. The insurer had the police report at the time it initially provided coverage, and only reversed itself when its appraiser realized that the damaged car was not the car on the claim form and was not listed in the policy.

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith, among other claims against the insurer as well as the broker. The insurer moved for summary judgment, which the court granted.

There is no breach of contract, or estoppel under the UIPA or UCSP regulations

First, there was no breach of contract, as the vehicle at issue never became part of the policy. The insured argued, however, that the insured was estopped from denying coverage under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) and the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UCSP) regulations governing “Standards for prompt, fair and equitable settlements applicable to insurers”. The insured relied on 31 Pa. Code § 146.7(a)(1), which states that, “Within 15 working days after receipt by the insurer of properly executed proofs of loss, the first-party claimant shall be advised of the acceptance or denial of the claim by the insurer.”

Judge Wolson rejected the statutory/regulatory argument for three reasons:

  1. There is no private right of action under the UIPA and UCSP regulations, and only Pennsylvania’s Insurance Commissioner can enforce the UIPA and UCSP regulations.

  2. The policy itself did not incorporate the UIPA or UCSP obligations or impose those obligations on the insurer. “Absent the incorporation of these obligations into the Policy, their potential violation does not breach the Policy.”

  3. The doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot “create an insurance contract where none existed.”

THERE IS NO BAD FAITH

  1. The broker is not an insurer subject to the bad faith statute

First, the court recognized that there was no sustainable statutory bad faith action against the broker because it was not an insurer.

  1. There is no bad faith where no benefit is denied

Next, as to the insurer, “To prevail on a bad faith claim, a plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence that, among other things, an insurer ‘did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy’ or that an insurer committed a ‘frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay proceeds of a policy.’” Because the insurer had no contractual obligation to pay its refusal could not have been unreasonable, and the claim failed.

  1. The UIPA and UCSP regulations do no prevent changing a coverage decision based on new information

The court rejected another argument based on the UIPA and UCSP regulations cited above. The insured argued the failure to pay was unreasonable once the insurer accepted coverage. The court found, however, the UCSP regulations did not “prevent an insurer from changing a coverage determination based on new information.”

More importantly to the court, the insured adduced no case law adding such a gloss to section 146.7, i.e. a mandate that once coverage was accepted it could never be denied under any circumstances. Thus, it was reasonable for the insurer to interpret that regulation to permit an insurer to revise a coverage decision based on new information.

  1. A Delay based on an Oversight is not the Basis for Bad Faith

Finally, any delay in revising its coverage determination was likewise not bad faith. Citing the 2007 DeWalt decision, the court observed that an “insurer’s actions in allegedly delaying investigation did not constitute bad faith under Pennsylvania law [when] there was no evidence that such delay was deliberate or knowing, or was unreasonable.”

While the carrier “probably could have been more diligent” in determining which vehicle was involved in the collision by looking at the police report earlier, “an insurer ‘need not show that the process used to reach its conclusion was flawless or that its investigatory methods eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusion.’” There was nothing in the record to establish the insurer “acted with reckless disregard of its obligations or otherwise fell so short that it acted in bad faith.”

Date of Decision: April 1, 2020

Live Face on Web, LLC v. Merchants Insurance Group, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 2:19-cv-00528-JDW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56852 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2020) (Wolson, J.)

Our thanks to attorney Daniel Cummins of the excellent Tort Talk Blog for bringing this case to our attention.  We also note the Tort Talk Blog’s three recent posts on post-Koken motions to sever and stay bad faith claims in the Western District, York County, and Lancaster County.

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.)

 

THERE IS NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Last week, we summarized Judge Jones decision in this case regarding whether the insured adequately pleaded bad faith. In this post, we address his ruling on whether violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UCSP) regulations and Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) can state a private cause of action.

Judge Jones found the applicable case law clear that there is no private right of action under the UIPA or UCSP regulations. Rather, these laws and regulations can only be enforced by the insurance commissioner.

The court cites numerous opinions supporting this conclusion, including, e.g., the Third Circuit’s Leach opinion, Judge Dalzell’s opinion in Upper Pottsgrove v. International Fidelity, Judge Tucker’s decision in Weinberg v. Nationwide, and Judge Kosik’s decision in Oehlhmann v. Metropolitan Life, among the many cases cited.

The court did appear to recognize, however, that under some circumstances a bad faith claim could be premised on a UIPA or UCSP violation, citing Judge Conaboy’s Aldsworth decision, and Judge Rambo’s 2014 Militello decision.

[Note:  Last May, we posted a breakdown of how various courts have addressed the extent of the relationship between the UIPA and UCSP regulations and statutory bad faith claims.]

Finally, the court dismissed the insured’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim, solely under the economic loss doctrine.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2020

Clapps v. State Farm Insurance Cos., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-3745, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47800 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2020) (Jones II, J.)

 

COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FINDS BAD FAITH FOR (1) RELYING ON UNWARRANTED RED FLAGS; (2) REACHING COVERAGE CONCLUSIONS UNSUPPORTED BY ACTUAL FACTS; (3) UNREASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF POLICY’S COVERAGE LANGUAGE; (4) DRAWING UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERT REPORT; (5) FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FULLY; (6) VIOLATING UIPA (Common Pleas Lehigh)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today’s post summarizes Lehigh County Judge Melissa Pavlack’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this breach of contract and bad faith case.

The Court’s Factual Findings

The insureds’ car was stolen. It was recovered, but with considerable damage. The insureds’ license plate was replaced with a stolen plate. The court found that the thieves never intended to return the vehicle. The insureds sought coverage based on the theft and vandalism, relying on policy language covering theft, larceny, vandalism, and malicious mischief.

The court found the insureds were not involved in any way with the theft or vandalism, nor was there any fraud on their part. The car was deemed a total loss, and valued at around $13,000. There were additional costs for hauling and storage, bringing the total claim to approximately $17,000.

The insurer denied the claim, citing insufficient evidence the car had been stolen. It refused to consider a separate vandalism claim because the damages arose out of an alleged theft. Thus, the insurer did not investigate the vandalism claim, and the denial letter never addressed the vandalism claim’s merits. The insurer never cited any policy exclusions applying to the vandalism claims. There was also no denial based on fraud.

The insurer’s investigation included a claim’s adjuster and supervisor, a fraud investigator, an appraiser, an appraisal report, an investigator and three investigator reports, an examination under oath over the telephone and in person, document requests, and a site visit to the loss location. At trial, the adjuster could not recall which of the insured’s statements under oath led to the claim denial.

The investigator reported to the carrier that one of the insureds was uncooperative because she did not bring unredacted tax returns and cell phone records to her examination under oath. Relying on this alleged lack of cooperation, the claims supervisor wrote to the insured that she had failed to cooperate by not bringing these tax returns and records, and failed to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. However, the investigator was not aware that another of the insurer’s representatives had actually instructed the insured to bring redacted copies of the tax returns to the examination under oath, which she did.

As to other document issues allegedly evidencing a failure to cooperate, it was made clear during the examination under oath that the insured was a medical professional. She could not simply produce her phone records without violating HIPAA. She attempted to cooperate during the examination under oath by showing some messages in her phone from the days in question; but the adjuster was also concerned about HIPAA, and was hesitant to proceed with looking at her phone. Further, the court found the insured could not respond to the insurer’s request for the car purchase documents because these had been stolen from the glove compartment.

Moreover, in contrast to assertions that the insureds failed to cooperate, the court found that the insurer’s fraud investigator conceded the insureds had cooperated, and had provided documents requested in the manner requested.

As to the allegation there was insufficient evidence of theft, the insurer relied upon its expert report. The expert opined there was no forced entry, and that the car only could have been moved using a key. The court found (1) the insurance policy did not require forced entry as a condition precedent to establish theft, and (2) the car could be moved without a key. Further, the insurer’s fraud investigator testified that cars can be stolen without noticeable signs of forced entry, and there was other testimony to the same effect. The court also found that the fraud investigator never communicated with the claim adjuster that forced entry was not required to steal a car.

In sum, the court found these conclusions (forced entry and use of a key) were not reasonable bases to deny the very existence of a theft.

Most significantly, the expert only opined the car was not stolen by means of forced entry, and that a key had to have been used. Whether or not these conclusions were correct was irrelevant in the court’s view, because the expert never opined the car was not stolen. Thus, it was an error to make the leap that the car was not stolen, as it could have been stolen by some means other than forced entry, or could have been moved without a key.

There was Coverage for Theft, Vandalism, and Malicious Mischief

In addressing the breach of contract claim, the court looked at the policy’s plain language. The policy expressly covered theft, larceny, vandalism, and malicious mischief. There were no applicable exclusions in this case, so the court only had to interpret the coverage language.

The court looked at the dictionary definition of these terms, rather than any criminal statutes or case law defining vandalism, theft, etc. It concluded the facts of the case fell within these coverage terms, and the insureds claims were covered. As to bad faith, it was unreasonable to conclude the facts at hand did not fall within the policy’s plain and unambiguous language. Further, the court found the insurer’s conduct unreasonable in failing to consider coverage for vandalism and malicious mischief when denying the claims.

Court uses Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Regulations as Standards

The court cited (1) Unfair Claim Settlement Practice regulations (UCSP), 31 Pa. Code § 146.4, on obligations to fully disclose coverages and benefits; and (2) the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), 40 Pa.S.A. § 1171.5(a)(10)(iv), on failing to reasonably explain a claim denial.

The court cited these UCSP and UIPA provisions in the context of the first bad faith prong, lack of a reasonable basis to deny benefits. The court then observed the insurer had completely failed to consider the vandalism and malicious mischief claims covered under the policy. This supported the existence of bad faith, though it is not wholly clear whether the UCSP and UIPA violations were evidence of bad faith conduct, or were bad faith per se.

[We have previously posted on how courts treat alleged violations of UCSP regulations and the UIPA in bad faith cases, ranging from (1) their being completely outside the scope of consideration in determining bad faith, (2) as constituting potential evidence of bad faith, or (3) as amounting to statutory bad faith. It is not quite clear in the present case which of the latter two standards applied. Even without citing the UCSP or UIPA, however, it would seem the court’s finding that the insurer gave no regard to plainly covered vandalism claims was a basis for bad faith, regardless of any UCSP or UIPA violations.]

Erroneous Red Flags

The insurer justified its conduct by identifying certain “red flags” that caused legitimate doubt in the insureds veracity. When scrutinized, however, the court found these red flags were based on factual errors or erroneous assumptions.

  1. The insured was deemed uncooperative for failing to attend a unilaterally scheduled examination under oath. In fact, however, the court found the insured gave sufficient notice she could not attend on that date, and cooperated in rescheduling the examination under oath on another date, at which she appeared. She also had agreed to, and participated in, an examination over the phone.

As to the original date for the in-person examination, the court observed that the insurer knew in advance the insured was not going to appear on the first scheduled date, but still had its representatives appear to make a record against the insured for failing to appear.

  1. The insurer also asserted the insured was uncooperative because she provided redacted tax returns. As stated above, the insurer’s own representative had informed the insured in writing that certain redactions could be made. Further, when the insurer later requested an unredacted return, the insureds provided it.

  2. As to the alleged lack of cooperation on cell phone records, this was fully addressed during the examination under oath. As stated above, the insured was a medical professional and there were certain items on her phone records that could not be produced under HIPAA. That being said, she still offered to let the insurer’s representative look at her cell phone during the examination under oath, regarding non-HIPAA messages from the date the car was stolen. The adjuster was concerned about violating HIPAA, and was hesitant to do so.

  3. The insurer also deemed it a red flag that the loss came shortly after the policy’s purchase. This turned out to be an error. The court found the policy was purchased at least six months earlier. Another suspicion surrounded alleged excessive mileage on the car, which the court found was likewise not factually the case.

Failure to Fully Investigate the Red Flags

The court observed that while the insurer took the insured’s examination under oath, and conducted various investigations based on these alleged red flags, it failed to contact the police. Nor did the insurer follow up on evidence that drugs reportedly were found in the glove compartment. Though not expressly stated in the conclusions of law, this implies that the presence of drugs, under all the facts, favored the idea that strangers had stolen the car for nefarious purposes.

The Insurer Relied on its Expert Report for the Wrong Conclusion

For the court, the coverage issue concerning the insurer’s expert was simple: Was the car stolen? The issue was not: How was the car stolen?

The expert opined on two means by which the car was not stolen. The court found the expert never opined, however, that the car was not stolen. Moreover, the insurer never argued that the insureds faked a theft or lied about it.

The court pointed out that other means could have been used to steal the car, including non-intrusive and non-mechanical means. For example, after the car was recovered it was towed twice. The court found this demonstrated the car could be moved without forced entry and/or without a key.

Thus, the insurer’s reliance on the expert report to deny the fundamental existence of theft was unreasonable. The court found relying on the expert report to reach a conclusion (no theft) on which the report did not render an opinion, amounted to a knowing or reckless unreasonable denial of benefits, i.e. bad faith.

After finding bad faith on all the foregoing grounds, the court stated it would schedule a hearing on attorney’s fees, interest, and punitive damages.

Date of Decision: December 27, 2019

Unterberg v. Mercury Insurance Company of Florida, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Case No. 2016-C-806 (Dec. 27, 2019) (Pavlack, J.)

Thanks to Daniel Cummins of the excellent and extremely useful Tort Talk Blog for bringing this case to our attention.

BAD FAITH NOT ADEQUATELY PLEADED; NO PRIVATE ACTION FOR UIPA VIOLATIONS; ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT AVAILABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The court reiterates here that (1) bad faith claims must be pleaded with supporting factual allegations, (2) there is no private cause of action for UIPA or Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulation violations, and (3) attorney’s fees are not recoverable under a breach of contract claim.

This is a UIM case for breach of contract and bad faith, as well as unfair claim settlement practices violations. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim as improperly pleaded. It moved to dismiss the unfair claim settlement count on the basis that the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations do not provide for a private cause of action. Finally, the insurer moved to dismiss the attorney’s fee claims in the breach of contract count.

  1. Bare-bones bad faith claims dismissed without prejudice

The court dismissed the bad faith claim, without prejudice, because the insureds only pleaded conclusory bare-bones allegations. The complaint did not include any factual allegations supporting the conclusory pleadings.

These inadequate bare-bones allegations were as follows:

Delay. Even after determining that Plaintiffs had a right to the insurance proceeds claimed, the Defendant has delayed paying Plaintiffs their policy proceeds for unknown reasons.

Forcing Insured to Seek Legal Redress. By delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim, Defendant Progressive Corporation, knowing that it had no legal justification for doing so, purposefully forced Plaintiffs to file this Complaint in order to obtain the insurance proceeds to which they are entitled. Defendant, Progressive Corporation, forced Plaintiffs to seek legal redress for unknown reasons.

Deception. Defendant realizing that it had no legal grounds for denying or delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim, and/or engaged [sic] in deceptive acts relating to Plaintiffs’ policy for the purposes of creating an apparent reason for denying the Plaintiffs’ claim where no such reason existed.

False Accusations. Defendant realizing that it had no legal grounds for denying or delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim, made false statements to the Plaintiffs’ representatives and/or other persons for the purposes of creating an apparent reason for denying the Plaintiffs’ claim where no such reason existed.

Oppressive Demands. In the course of adjusting Plaintiffs’ claim, Defendant made oppressive demands of the Plaintiffs for the purposes of delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim.

The court looked to the following decisions in supporting this result: Myers, Peters, Sowinski, Moran, and Grustas.

  1. There is no private cause of action under the UIPA or under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Regulations

The insureds relied upon the Supreme Court’s 1981 D’Ambrosio decision in asserting causes of action for UIPA and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices violations. They contended the Supreme Court’s 2017 Rancosky decision superseded D’Ambrosio, and created these private causes of action. The court rejected this argument, observing that Rancosky simply observed that the 1989 bad faith statute superseded D’Ambrosio to the extent it created a new statutory bad faith cause of action years after D’Ambrosio was decided. Rancosky, however, still recognized D’Ambrosio’s holding there is no private UIPA cause of action.

The insurer “therefore did not err in relying on D’Ambrosio for the proposition that there is no private cause of action under UIPA. It remains the case that neither UIPA nor the regulations governing unfair claim settlement practices allow a plaintiff to bring a private cause of action.” The “unfair claim settlement practices claim will accordingly be dismissed with prejudice because there is no private cause of action for unfair claim settlement practices under Pennsylvania law.”

The court looked to the recent Excel and Neri cases in reaching this decision.

3. Attorney’s fees cannot be recovered under a breach of contract theory

Litigants are responsible for their own attorney’s fees and legal costs absent a statute authorizing fees, a contractual provision for fees, or some other recognized exception to the general rule. None of these circumstances applied to the insureds’ breach of contract claim. The court rejected the argument that fees were allowed because attorney’s fees may be permitted during the pendency of litigation for dilatory, obdurate, vexatious or bad faith conduct in the course of litigation. This was irrelevant as neither party filed a sanctions motion, and such behavior was not part of the actual case pleaded.

Date of Decision: December 17, 2019

Kline v. Progressive Corp., U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Civil No. 1:19-CV-00676, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216258 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2019) (Wilson, J.)

CONDUCT VIOLATING UIPA MAY BE CONSIDERED IN STATUTORY BAD FAITH CASES (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this putative class action, plaintiff sought declaratory relief under the Unfair Insurance Practice Act (UIPA). The court observed that there is no private right of action under the UIPA, and seeking declaratory relief for violating specific UIPA provisions would amount to an impermissible private cause of action.

In a footnote, the court added:

“In D’Ambrosio [v. Pa. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 494 Pa. 501, 431 A.2d 966, 969 (Pa. 1981)], the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the UIPA is enforced by the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania, and stated that was for the legislature to determine whether additional sanctions should be available. Pennsylvania later enacted 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371, which permits an insured under a policy to pursue a claim of bad faith against the insurer. See Rancosky v. Washington Nat’l Ins. Co., 642 Pa. 153, 170 A.3d 364, 371 (Pa. 2017). Conduct that violates the UIPA may be considered in determining whether an insurer acted in bad faith under this statute. Jones [v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins.], 995 A.2d [1233,] 1236-37 [(Pa. Super. Ct. 2010)].”

On this last point, there is a split in authority whether UIPA violations even can be used as evidence of a bad faith claim. See this post discussing the different positions courts have taken on the UIPA in connection with statutory bad faith claims.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2019

Excel Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-4804, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156306, 2019 WL 4393076 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2019) (Rufe, J.)

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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        4.  No bad faith for alleged theory switching.

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

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

Date of Decision: August 27, 2019

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

POTPOURRI OF ISSUES ADDRESSED IN RESPONSE TO 11 COUNT COMPLAINT: (1) REMAND (2) GIST OF THE ACTION/ECONOMIC LOSS (3) UIPA; (4) DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; (5) UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (6) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS BY BREACH OF CONTRACT PLAINTIFFS AND (7) ADEQUATELY PLEADING BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this Opinion, Eastern District Judge Tucker addresses a wide range of fundamental legal issues in the context of ruling on a motion to dismiss the insured’s 11 count complaint. The complaint includes not only breach of contract and bad faith claims, but tort claims, UIPA claims, declaratory judgment claims, and injunctive relief claims, all arising out of the alleged failure to pay on an insurance claim. The court also addresses a motion to remand after removal.

We do not address all of the issues Judge Tucker discusses, but highlight a few of the key principles adduced in her opinion. Her full opinion can be found here.

  1. Motion to remand denied.  (i) In determining the jurisdictional minimum amount-in-controversy, the court may consider the possibility of punitive damages under the bad faith statute. (ii) Diversity of citizenship can be established by showing the defendant is not a citizen of plaintiff’s state, just as well as by affirmatively showing the state(s) in which defendant is a citizen.

  2. The gist of the action doctrine and/or the economic loss doctrine will typically bar tort claims based on violations of an insurance contract.

  3. Violating the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) (i) does not create a private right of action, and (ii) some courts hold it may not be used to establish violation of statutory bad faith.

As the court states: “Plaintiff’s claim is also barred to the extent that it relies on an alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (‘UIPA’) because the UIPA does not permit private recovery for a violation of its provisions. Plaintiff advances a claim for damages based, in part, on a theory that [the insurer] was negligent having breached duties imposed upon it by the UIPA, 40 Pa Const. Stat. Ann. § 1171.1, et seq. ‘Courts within the Third Circuit and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continue to recognize [, however,] that the UIPA does not provide plaintiffs with a private cause of action.’ Tippett, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37513, 2015 WL 1345442 at *2 (quoting Weinberg v. Nationwide Cas. and Ins. Co., 949 F. Supp. 2d 588, 598 (E.D. Pa. 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, in Tippett, the district court not only rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to state a separate claim under the UIPA, but also rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that proof of a UIPA violation might otherwise provide support for the plaintiff’s independent bad faith claim. Id. Plaintiff’s claim under the UIPA in this case is similarly barred.”

  1. Breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing is subsumed in the breach of contract claim.

  2. The Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law applies to the sale of insurance policies, not claims handling.

As the court states: “While Plaintiff rightly notes that the ‘UTPCPL creates a private right of action in persons upon whom unfair methods of competition and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices are employed and who, as a result, sustain an ascertainable loss,’ … Plaintiff fails to note that ‘the UTPCPL applies to the sale of an insurance policy [but] does not apply to the handling of insurance claims.’” Thus, as the alleged “wrongful conduct under the UTPCPL relate[s] solely to [the insurer’s] actions after the execution of the homeowner’s insurance policy,” the UTPCPL claim was dismissed.

  1. Declaratory judgment count not permitted in light of breach of contract claim.

The court states: “Federal courts routinely dismiss actions seeking declaratory judgment that, if entered, would be duplicative of a judgment on an underlying breach of contract claim.” Judge Tucker cites case law for the propositions that “granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss a plaintiff’s independent cause of action for declaratory judgment because the claim for declaratory judgment was duplicative of an underlying breach of contract claim,” and “dismissing a plaintiff’s duplicative claim for declaratory judgment in the face of an underlying breach of insurance contract claim and observing that ‘pursuant to discretionary declaratory judgment authority, district courts have dismissed declaratory judgment claims at the motion to dismiss stage when they duplicate breach of contract claims within the same action.’”

  1. The insured pleads a plausible bad faith claim.

Judge Tucker highlighted the following allegations in ruling that the bad faith claim could proceed:

i the insurer “attempted to close her insurance claim despite never having sent an adjuster or inspector to evaluate the damage to the Property.”;

ii the insurer “engaged in intentional ‘telephone tag’ to delay and deny Plaintiff coverage under the homeowner’s insurance policy.”;

iii. the insurer never “scheduled an inspection of the Property or otherwise [took] any action to deny or grant coverage under the homeowner’s insurance policy.”

Thus, at the end of the day, after reviewing all of the claims and motion to remand, the insured was allowed to proceed on the breach of contract and bad faith claims.

Date of Decision: August 13, 2019

Neri v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-0355, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136820 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2019) (Tucker, J.)