Archive for the 'PA – Claims Handling Procedures' Category


Print Friendly

This case arose after a fire damaged the insured’s premises, resulting in a claim adjusted for $182,739.11, subject to a hold-back of recoverable depreciation of $58,075.29. The insurer ultimately issued a $123,663.82 payment to the insured. This amount represented the insurer’s calculation of the actual cash value of the loss, less depreciation and the insured’s deductible. The insured then filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith. The insured argued that the insurer wrongfully withheld additional funds owed to him.

The insurer filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith claim. The Court wrote that the insured’s complaint “offers a plethora of conclusory allegations regarding [insurer’s] unreasonableness, misrepresentation, and unfairness without identifying how something was done unreasonably, what specifically was misrepresented, or what circumstances made some action unfair.” As such, the Court held that the insured’s bad faith claim lacked sufficient factual detail.

Furthermore, the Court took judicial notice that the insurance policy at issued allowed for recovery of the withheld depreciation amount, if the insured repaired the damaged property within 180 days of the insurance payment. The insured failed to make the repairs within this time. Thus, the insured was not entitled to additional funds according to the terms of the policy.

The Court granted the insurer’s motion and dismissed the bad faith claim, with no reference to permitting an amended complaint on the issue.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2017

Fasano v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. 17-cv-1495, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118558 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2017) (Curtis Joyner, J.)


Print Friendly

This case involved a dispute over whether water damage was covered under various policy terms and endorsements. The basic facts involved the backup in a clogged roof drain during a rainstorm, leading to water damage. The carrier agreed the insured had limited coverage under a specific policy endorsement, while the insured sought greater coverage.

The court granted summary judgment to the carrier on the coverage issues. In addressing the bad faith claim, the court found that the insured provided no evidence that the insurer’s refusal to pay beyond the endorsement limit was in bad faith. The insurer had two separate inspections done by two different people regarding causation. After initially denying the claim entirely, when later presented with the insured’s report that the damage was caused by the clogged drain, the insurer paid for damages from that event up to the endorsement limits specifically covering that type of loss. Moreover, the insurer’s policy interpretation was reasonable and not made in bad faith where the policy language was clear and consistent with the insurer’s decisions.

Summary judgment was granted to the insurer on all grounds.

Date of Decision:  July 21, 2017

Reynolds v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, June Term 2015, No. 2031, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 225 (C.C.P. Phila. July 21, 2017) (Djerrasi, J.) (Commerce Court)


Print Friendly

This 95-page opinion granting the insurer summary judgment provides an extremely detailed review of the facts, and considerable exposition of bad faith case law concerning investigation and claims handling.

As set forth in the Opinion, the insured owned multiple rental properties that she leased out to college students. Beginning in 2005, she purchased landlord property insurance policies from the insurer. In 2014, tenants moved into the properties and alerted township police to deplorable conditions. The police report catalogued broken windows, buckled hardwood floors, water damage, ceiling damage, removed and damaged fixtures and doors, detached ceiling lights and smoke alarms, peeling paint, an overgrown lawn, broken appliances, trash, and mice droppings. The tenants then broke their leases, citing a breach of the implied warranty of habitability.

A township code official inspected and photographed the properties and prepared a list of code violations. The official posted violation notices, and revoked the insured’s student rental licenses. The insured notified both the insurer and her insurance broker, and made a claim for the property damage and lost rent.

The insurer mistakenly filed the insured’s communication in a preexisting file related to another claim with the same insured. However, an employee of the insurance broker immediately called the insured to request more facts relevant to the claim. The insured did not pick up the call and did not return the voicemail.

The township later brought a code violation action against the insured in the Court of Common Pleas, as well as for the insured’s failure to allow mandated property inspections over several years. The insured then reached out to the insurer, and repeatedly claimed that her earlier communications went unanswered. The insured’s story changed, however, after the insurer produced evidence of phone calls and emails from claims adjusters. The insured conceded that she did in fact speak to someone, but she only “sort of” recalled the conversation.

Even after the rental license revocations, the insured again rented properties to two other college students. Similar physical problems arose, and the new tenants were likewise unable to reside at the properties. The township locked the insured out of the properties.

Throughout this period, the insurer’s claims handlers continually attempted to communicate with the insured to gather more facts concerning the insured’s claim. The insured received an email stating “‘it is imperative that I make voice to voice contact with you to get accurate loss facts regarding the claim that you submitted’ since ‘the claims process is reliant on the information that is shared between ‘you’ the insured and ‘me’ the claims adjuster.’” Several days after the insured received that email, the adjuster had a telephone call with the insured, but the insured said she could not speak with the adjuster due to ongoing litigation. The insured then hung up the phone.

The insurer took the position that the policy did not provide coverage for property damage, lost rents or the township’s suit against the insured.

The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, and alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). The Court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, stating that the insurance policies were not “all risk” policies whereby coverage is automatically triggered in the event of loss. Furthermore, the insured failed to show that the losses occurred suddenly and accidentally, and the insured had no reasonable expectation of coverage. The court also found that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured in the state court action. Additionally, the court granted the insurer summary judgment on the UTPCPL claim, finding no fraud or misrepresentations to the insured with regard to the policies.

As to the bad faith claim, the insured alleged that the insurer intentionally delayed opening a claim, delayed commencing its investigation, and that it lacked a reasonable basis for refusing to pay the insured benefits under the policies. The Court found that there existed no clear and convincing evidence that the insurer acted in bad faith. The Court stated that “the record makes clear that [the insurer’s] delays are attributable to mistake, possible confusion between [the insurer] and [the broker,] and [the insured’s] obfuscation and refusal to cooperate with [the claims] representatives.” The Court further opined that the bad faith claim must fail because the evidence shows the insurer conducted an adequate investigation and had a reasonable basis for denying coverage. Any delays on the part of the insurer were attributable to the insured’s “repeated failures to provide the information necessary to open a claim….”

The Court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Date of Decision: April 6, 2017

Doherty v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. 15-05165, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52795 (E.D. Pa. April 6, 2017) (Pappert, J.)


Print Friendly

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

The insured and insurer were in a dispute over what caused damage to the insured’s home. The insurer sent out an independent engineer for two inspections, with a third being cancelled due to disagreement over videotaping the inspection. This inspector’s analysis, which involved an invasive inspection by cutting holes, identified long standing structural problems as the cause of loss, rather than a specific weather event. There was no coverage for the former, but coverage for the later.

The insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims. The court granted partial summary judgment on the bad faith claim.

The insurer alleged various biases on the inspector’s part and that the conclusion was in error, apparently because of these biases. The standard for proving bad faith requires clear and convincing evidence of conduct that goes beyond negligence or bad judgment; but the first hurdle is that the insurer’s denial must have been unreasonable.

In this case, the summary judgment record reflected the insurer’s prompt action once the claims were made, retention of an independent contractor, that contractor’s conducting multiple investigations into the cause of loss, and the insurer’s reliance on the independent inspector’s report in concluding there was no coverage. The court found that “[t]hese actions constitute a reasonable basis for denying coverage, notwithstanding any findings on the accuracy of the reports and interpretations of the insurance contract.”

Thus, summary judgment was granted on the bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: July 5, 2017

Souder v. Travelers, No. 15-CV-02223, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103332 (M.D. Pa. July 5, 2017) (Mehalchick, M.J.)

The parties had agreed to allow the Magistrate Judge to rule on the motion.



Print Friendly

This is “another UIM bad faith case,” the most common scenario for bad faith cases. That being said, it remains important for all counsel and parties addressing bad faith law to study any broader principles to be found in these cases, rather than being lulled into a sense the case is unimportant once it becomes apparent to the reader that it is just “another UIM bad faith case.”

In this case, the insured alleged he sought the $15,000 policy limit and the insurer would not agree to pay that sum. The complaint included assertions that the insurer failed to “(1) act with reasonable promptness in evaluating and responding to his claim and reasonable fairness in paying the claim, (2) negotiate his claim, (3) properly investigate and evaluate his claim and (4) request a defense medical examination of him.” Without pleading facts regarding the insurer’s actual investigation, responses or offers, the insured still claimed “that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for its conduct in handling his claim since there ‘is no dispute in this case that the accident was the fault of the underinsured driver and that [he] was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under [his] policy.’”

The court observed the general principle that to “recover on a bad faith claim, a claimant is required to show by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the defendant insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying the policy benefits; and (2) that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis when it denied the claim.” It stated that “[v]arious other actions by an insurer can also rise to the level of bad faith, such as ‘lack of investigation into the facts[ ] or a failure to communicate with the insured.” The court noted “[b]ad faith may occur ‘when an insurance company makes an inadequate investigation or fails to perform adequate legal research concerning a coverage issue.’” The court added, “[a]lthough an insurer’s conduct need not be fraudulent for an insured to recover pursuant to a ‘bad faith’ claim, mere negligence or bad judgment will not suffice.”

Finally, in its general statements concerning bad faith law, the court stated “[a] claimant must show that the insurer acted in bad faith based on some motive of self-interest or ill will.” This is an example of how a UIM case may reveal some point of broader interest. In Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took up the issue of whether “some motive of self-interest or ill will” is an element of statutory bad faith, or merely evidence relevant to proving the elements of reasonable basis and knowledge or reckless disregard. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held for ten years that this is not an element of statutory bad faith; however, counsel or parties in federal court should be aware that until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, there might be federal courts that do find it to be an element. Argument in Rancosky occurred on April 4, 2017.

In this case, the court dismissed the bad faith claim, with leave to amend the complaint. The insured only alleged that he and the insurer failed to agree on the UIM sum to be paid, to which he claimed he was entitled. However, the law provides that an insurer’s decision not to immediately pay a policy limits demand, without more, does not constitute bad faith. Without more facts concerning the insured’s claim and the insurer’s investigations, negotiations, offers and communications, the court could not simply infer the presence of an actionable bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: June 19, 2017

Jones v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 17-648, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93673 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 2017) (Pappert, J.)



Print Friendly

This summary judgment opinion involved a bad faith dispute based on alleged delay in claims handling in the course of an appraisal process valuing property loss. The court had earlier dismissed the insureds’ breach of contract claim, but had allowed the bad faith claim to proceed.

The court first observed that in its earlier decision, the dispute over the claim value was not the basis for a breach of contract claim, where the insureds could not show the actual breach of a contractual duty. In allowing the bad faith claim to proceed, the court had “expressly found that the amended complaint limited the bad faith claim to the delay in the appraisal process,” not value. Thus, it rejected the insureds’ current effort to assert bad faith for undervaluing of the claim, which the court found “irrelevant.”

The court summarized the law concerning delay and bad faith. “[A] bad faith insurance practice can include an unreasonable delay in handling or paying claims.” “Thus, even when ‘an insurance claim has been settled and paid, Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute provides insurance claimants a means of redressing unreasonable delays by their insurers.’”

To establish a claim of bad faith based on the insurer’s delay in paying the claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) the delay was attributable to the insurer; (2) the insurer had no reasonable basis for causing the delay; and (3) the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of a reasonable basis for the delay.” It is “[t]he plaintiff [who] bears the burden of establishing delay by clear and convincing evidence.” “A long period of time between demand and settlement does not, on its own, necessarily constitute bad faith.” Further, “’[i]f delay is attributable to the need to investigate further or even to simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred.’”

The court closely analyzed the history of the parties’ conduct of the appraisal process. The court found the first alleged delay of 5 weeks in acknowledging the appraisal demand was de minimis, and could not lead a reasonable jury to find bad faith. Moreover, after acknowledging the demand, the insurer’s appraiser reached out to the insureds’ appraiser, but the insureds’ appraiser stated he could not begin work until he had a signed agreement with the insureds. Once he had that signed agreement, the two appraisers then executed a joint declaration and began their inspections. This could not be the basis for a bad faith claim.

The court also rejected the argument for bad faith during a subsequent 5-month period during the appraisal process. Both appraisers carried out investigations during the first three months of this period. The insurer’s appraiser also had lab tests done regarding asbestos remediation, investigated the HVAC system, and conducted extensive research in response to the insureds’ claim for engineering and architectural fees, which involved multiple interviews with the plaintiffs’ engineer and architect. Part of a month-long time lapse thereafter included deference by the insurer to the insureds’ appraiser traveling to Florida for his mother’s funeral. Once he returned, both appraisers spoke again, and submitted the claim to an umpire.

In sum, plaintiffs could not meet their burden to establish that the putative “delay was unreasonable, that it was solely attributable to [the insurer] or that [the insurer] had no reasonable basis for causing any such delay.” Any alleged delays were “an ordinary part of legal and insurance work.” The eight months at issue from the time of demand to the time of the umpire’s meeting was “relatively minimal,” and during “that period, both parties’ appraisers were actively conducting investigations, with much of the actual delay attributable to plaintiffs’ own adjuster.”

The court granted summary judgment for the insurer.

Date of Decision: June 8, 2017

Dagit v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 16-3843, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87971 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2017) (O’Neill, Jr., J.)



Print Friendly

This property loss case provides a good summary of basic bad faith law leading into its analysis of the facts, and then some strong language on bringing a bad faith claim where the insured’s own conduct led to the delays at issue.

Quoting the Court:

“To succeed on a bad faith claim, a Plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits; and (2) that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis.” Verdetto v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 837 F.Supp 2d. 480, 484 (M.D.Pa. 2011), affirmed 510 Fed. Appx. 209, 2013 W.L. 175175 (3d. Cir. 2013)(quoting Klinger v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 115 F.3d 230, 233 (3d. Cir. 1997). In addition, a Plaintiff must demonstrate bad faith by clear and convincing evidence. Polselli v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 23 F.3d 747, 751 (3d. Cir. 1994). For an insurance company to show that it had a reasonable basis to deny or delay paying a claim it need not demonstrate that its investigation yielded the correct conclusion, or that its conclusion more likely than not was accurate. Krisa v. Equitable Life Assurance Company, 113 F.Supp 2d. 694, 704 (M.D.Pa. 2000). The insurance company is not 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.” Id. Instead, an insurance company must show that it conducted a review or investigation sufficiently thorough to yield a reasonable foundation for its action. Id. “The ‘clear and convincing’ standard requires that the Plaintiff show ‘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.'” J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company v. Pilosi, 393 F.3d 356, 367 (3d. Cir. 2004).”

In this case, the insurer paid “no less than $347,000” for real and personal property loss from fire, with a remaining dispute over $17,000 for landscaping issues. That contract dispute could not be resolved on summary judgment. However, the bad faith claim was resolved on summary judgment, where the court found it “unthinkable” on the facts that a jury could find bad faith.

The bad faith claim centered on the timing of making payments for personal property loss (which had been ultimately paid to the policy limits). The court observed that the analytic framework for measuring claims of delay in making such payments began with the terms of the insurance policy itself. Unambiguous policy language placed most responsibility for the timing and amount of payments on actions required of the insureds. In this case, the insureds did not provide required documentation for over a year.

The court analyzed the history and concluded: “In short, Plaintiffs’ failure to perform their reporting duty under the contract impeded, wittingly or unwittingly, [the insurer’s] investigation of their claim. Thus, the delay in payment for the value of their personal property was a direct result of Plaintiffs’ failure to perform their contractual duties and, as such, may not serve as an appropriate basis for a finding of bad faith on Defendant’s part. Stated another way, Plaintiffs may not now seek to profit due to their lack of action.”

Date of Decision: May 30, 2017

Turner v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 3:15-CV-906, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81922 (M.D. Pa. May 30, 2017) (Conaboy, J.)




Print Friendly

A UIM claimant alleged bad faith based upon: “misstatement of … coverage limits, alleged delay in claims processing, insistence upon a sworn statement under oath …, persistence in collecting medical records and failure to comply with insurances regulations regarding periodic status notices to insureds as evidence of bad faith.” The insurer wanted summary judgment on the bad faith claim, which the court granted, stating: “that, while both parties indulged in occasional missteps in the process of reviewing and litigating this claim, the essentially uncontested evidence does not meet the demanding, precise and exacting legal standards prescribed under Pennsylvania law for a bad faith insurance processing claim.” The court observed the “well-established” principle “that it is not bad faith for an insurance company to ‘conduct a thorough investigation into a questionable claim.’” Insurers can be successful in defending against bad faith claim by showing that there were “red flags” warranting further investigation. Thus, delay alone does not equate to bad faith: “the mere passage of time does not define bad faith. Rather, an inference of bad faith only arises when time passes as part of a pattern of knowing or reckless delay in processing a meritorious insurance claim.”

The court observed that insurers in UIM cases need to deal with the claim against the underlying tortfeasor, which in this case went on for a number of years. Further, the insured did not place the insurer on notice of the UIM claim until nearly 5 years after the accident. Once the claim was made, the parties engaged in an ongoing process to attempt to resolve the dispute. Further, though the carrier did originally misstate the scope of coverage, this was an understandable mistake and was corrected, resulting only in a brief delay.

In addition, there was nothing untoward in seeking a sworn statement in light of multiple circumstances, including, e.g., incomplete medical information. The court did not accept the argument that no sworn statement was needed because the insured had been deposed two years earlier in the underlying litigation. Further, as stated, each party engaged in some missteps in exchanging medical information, and the insurer was justified in seeking further medical information after having obtained some records.

Next, in evaluating the claim the underlying tortfeasor only settled years after the accident, and for a sum less than policy limits; a factor going to the UIM insurer’s ability to evaluate the claim. The insured had originally demanded over double the UIM policy limits to settle, and then policy limits.

The final argument involved alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act and the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, specifically concerning the regulatory requirement to provide 45 day updates on the status of insurance claims. The court recognized that a “violation of these insurance rules can be considered when examining a bad faith claim under §8371.” The court then went on: “However, it is also clear beyond peradventure ‘that a violation of the UIPA or the UCSP is not a per se violation of the bad faith standard.’”

Applying these principles, the court concluded: “This case aptly illustrates why technical violations of these state insurance regulations cannot be equated with bad faith. The record before us amply reveals active, extensive and on-going communications …. Our review of the substance of these multiple communications … reveals that even when the communications are viewed in a light most favorable to [the insured], these communications do not support a claim of bad faith shown by clear and convincing evidence.”

The court then observed: “Given that the communications, in their substance, do not allow for a finding of bad faith here, it would be anomalous to conclude that the fact that the communications did not meet the technical frequency requirements mandated by insurance regulations, standing alone, established a bad faith claim in this case.”

Date of Decision: April 10, 2017

Ridolfi v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 15-859, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54267 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2017) (Carlson, M.J.)