Daily Archive for May 29th, 2009

MAY 2009 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT DISMISSES CONTRACT ON BASIS OF CONTRACTUAL LIMITATIONS; BAD FAITH NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED (Philadelphia)

In Dolley v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia dismissed the insured’s breach of contract claim on the basis that the insured failed to bring the claim within the one year contractual period required to bring any claim.  As to the bad faith count, the Court did not rely on that contractual term, but after stating the standard for showing bad faith, and that it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, found that the insured failed to plead facts sufficient to establish that the insurer “acted in bad faith, with improper motive, or recklessness by denying Plaintiff’s claim.”  This decision was not in Philadelphia’s Commerce Court.  

Date of Decision:  January 13, 2009

Dolley v. Allstate Ins. Co., April Term 2008, No. 577, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 2009 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 27 (C.C.P. Phila. Jan. 13, 2009) (DiVito, J.)

MAY 2009 BAD FAITH CASES
INSURER CANNOT ACT IN BAD FAITH WHEN RELYING ON INSURANCE DEPARTMENT REGULATION (Philadelphia Federal)

In Harnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the insured argued that the insurer’s proration of deductibles recovered by insurers through subrogation was improper as it did not make the insured whole, and that the insurance department regulation permitting such proration is beyond the department’s powers.  The court rejected that argument.  As the insurer acted in reasonable reliance on a valid statute, it could not be said to have acted in bad faith. 

Date of Decision:  March 6, 2009

Harnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-5752, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43126 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 6. 2009) (McLaughlin, J.)