Archive for the 'PA – Claims Handling Procedures' Category

OCTOBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: BAD FAITH PLEADED BASED ON FACTUAL HISTORY OF TIMING AND AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OFFERS, AND INCLUSION OF DEMAND TO RELEASE BAD FAITH CLAIM TO OBTAIN A SETTLEMENT (Western District of Pennsylvania)

Print Friendly

This is a UIM bad faith case. The insurer did not meet the insureds’ demand, and sought a release of bad faith claims during the negotiation process. Suit followed for breach of contract and bad faith.

In the fall of 2015, the insureds rejected a $4,335 offer. The insureds’ counsel demanded the insurer’s best and final offer in January of 2016, and the insurer responded with $5,000. The insureds rejected this offer.

The insurer increased its offer to $5,100, but the insureds remained uninterested in settlement for that amount. In the fall of 2016, the insurer increased its offer to $12,500, contingent on an agreement that the insureds execute a full and final release of all claims, including the bad faith claim.

The insureds rejected this offer as well, and subsequently brought suit for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss both claims, and the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.

As to the bad faith claim, the Magistrate Judge cited the Pennsylvania Superior Court as defining bad faith in the insurance context as “conduct [that] imports a dishonest purpose and means a breach of a known duty (for example, good faith and fair dealing), through some motive of self-interest or ill will; mere negligence or bad judgment is not bad faith.” [Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court recently made clear the motive of self-interest or ill will do not constitute an additional element of proof.]

The Magistrate Judge observed case law indicating bad faith may exist where an insurer attempts to obtain a release of a bad faith claim before it will pay any settlement under the policy. The court also reasoned that the insureds’ factual allegations concerning the length of time over which the offers were made, and the allegations that low offers were followed by dramatic increases were sufficient to support that claim. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the insurer’s motion to dismiss as sufficient facts were pleaded to make out a plausible claim.

Date of Decision: September 29, 2017

Winschell v. Encompass Home & Auto Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-522, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162384 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2017) (Pupo Lenihan, M.J.)

OCTOBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: PLEADING UIPA VIOLATIONS NOT FATAL WHERE THEY ARE NOT THE SOLE BASIS FOR STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIMS; COMPENSATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES NOT WITHIN BAD FAITH STATUTE (Middle District of Pennsylvania)

Print Friendly

This bad faith case asserting common law and statutory bad faith, as well as regulatory violations, alleged the following.

The insured owned property covered under a homeowner’s insurance policy. In June of 2014, the insured entered into a listing contract with a real estate agent for the sale of the property. The insured relocated out of state two months later. In October of 2014, the insured accepted an offer to sell the property for $275,000. Before the sale, the real estate agent discovered that water pipes had burst, causing significant damage.

It was alleged that an adjuster for the insurer estimated the damage at $80,000, and suggested that the insured may have sabotaged the property. The insured asserted there was no reason to sabotage the property because the $275,000 sale price far exceeded the amount left on the mortgage, and the buyer remained willing to purchase the property so long as repairs were made. The insurer wrote to the insured regarding coverage obligations and requesting further documentation. The insured timely responded to insurer’s request and provided the requested information.

The insurer referred the claim to its fraud unit. The insured provided requested information to the fraud unit, and sat for multiple examinations under oath. The insurer also requested phone records, financial information, and utility records.

The sale of the property fell through, and the property entered foreclosure proceedings. Counsel for the insured requested documentation from the insurer. The insurer allegedly failed to provide all of the requested documentation, but maintained its request for the insured’s cell phone records and financial information.

The insurer ultimately forwarded benefits totaling $110,510.20 to the insured. However, the insured estimated her damages at $155,785, and filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith, among other claims.

The insurer responded by filing a motion to dismiss the insured’s breach of contract claim. The Court refused to dismiss this claim, holding that the complaint “sufficiently sets forth the damages [the insured] purportedly suffered as a result of [the insurer’s] conduct.”

The insurer also filed a motion to strike the insured’s allegations of violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“UIPA”) and of Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (“UCSP”), arguing that these alleged violations cannot serve as the basis for private statutory bad faith claims. The Court stated that violations of the UIPA or UCSP are not per se violations of the bad faith statute, and added that the “Third Circuit and this Court have held that alleged violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act do not, in and of themselves, constitute bad faith….” The Court refused to strike those allegations, however, because the insured’s “bad faith claim does not rest solely on alleged UIPA or UCSP violations.”

The insured’s breach of contract claim included an alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The insurer also moved to strike this claim, arguing that the breach of contract claim subsumed it. The Court ruled that “as [the insured] has not pled a separate breach of contract claim, [the reference] may properly remain in the Complaint.”

Lastly, the Court struck the insured’s claims for compensatory and consequential damages, holding that such damages are not available under the Pennsylvania bad faith statute.

Date of Decision: September 19, 2017

Pratts v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 16-2385, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151650 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017) (Caputo, J.)

SEPTEMBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE NO EVIDENCE THAT CLAIM DENIAL WAS FRIVOLOUS OR UNFOUNDED, AND POLICY LANGUAGE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly

The insured filed a claim under his homeowner’s insurance policy after a leak in an air conditioner condensation line caused damage to his basement. Initially, the insured retained an independent claims adjuster to investigate the claim, who ultimately estimated the repair costs at $38,307.97. The insurer’s claims adjuster then investigated the property, and observed basement water damage, including “evidence of mold, rot, and deterioration damage to the building materials.” The insurer’s claims adjuster also noted bleach sprayed on the carpet in an attempt to remove the mold.

The insurer denied coverage due to exclusions precluding coverage for “damage caused by ‘continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water’ from an air conditioning system, ‘which occurs over a period of time,’ water damage . . . and damage caused by the use of improper materials in the construction or repair of the property. . . .”

The insured requested reconsideration of the denial, arguing that the claim stemmed from “a ‘one time occurrence and [was] not due to repeated seepage.’” The insurer reviewed the insured’s request, but denied coverage again because the insured submitted no new information warranting coverage. The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith, and the insurer moved for summary judgment on the bad faith claim.

In alleging bad faith, the insured argued that insurer failed to cite a factual basis for its coverage denial; that insurer unreasonably relied on an ambiguous and unenforceable policy exclusion for a loss caused by continuous or repeated seepage; and that there was no evidence that repeated seepage or leakage of water caused the loss.

After reiterating the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard required for a bad faith claim, the Court concluded that no evidence in the record supported a finding that the insurer’s denial was frivolous, unfounded, or motivated by self-interest or ill will. On the contrary, the Court found that the insurer “acted reasonably and in good faith at all times during the claims investigation and handling process.” [The issue of whether self-interest/ill will are elements of statutory bad faith claims is now pending before Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court in Rancosky. Oral argument was heard in April 2017.]

Furthermore, the Court found that the policy exclusions were neither ambiguous nor unenforceable. The mere fact that the insured may have interpreted those exclusions differently is not sufficient to support a bad faith claim. Lastly, the insurer provided expert evidence to show repeated seepage of water caused the loss, and the insured submitted no conflicting expert evidence.

The Court granted the insurer’s partial motion for summary judgment as to the bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: August 25, 2017

Brodzinski v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, No. 16-6125, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136644 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2017) (Surrick, J.)

SEPTEMBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH WHERE (2) LOW BUT REASONABLE SETTLEMENT OFFER, OR (2) FOR FAILING TO INCREASE OFFER WHERE INSURED WOULD ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN POLICY LIMITS (Philadelphia Common Pleas)

Print Friendly

The insured filed a UIM claim. The insurer ultimately offered $25,000 to settle the claim, but the insured indicated that he would not accept any amount less than the maximum policy limit of $50,000. Upon reviewing more claim information, the insurer increased its valuation to $28,000, but did not communicate this to the insured due to his earlier refusal to settle for less than $50,000. Pursuant to the terms of the policy, the insured requested arbitration of the dispute.

The arbitration panel awarded the insured $45,000. The insured filed suit against the insurer for bad faith, arguing that insurer’s final settlement offer of $25,000 was approximately half of the value of the ultimate arbitration award. The insured also cited insurer’s failure to notify him of its claim valuation increase.

The insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that its offer had a reasonable basis and that it did not act with an improper purpose in evaluating the insured’s claim. The Court agreed with the insurer, and held “an insurer that makes a low but reasonable estimate of [an insured’s] loss does not act in bad faith in making a settlement offer based upon its estimation.” The Court further reasoned that insurer did not act in bad faith because it evaluated relevant information concerning the insured’s claim, and the settlement offers were not arbitrary. Lastly, the insurer did not act in bad faith by failing to communicate its increased valuation to the insured because the insured unambiguously indicated that he would not settle for less than $50,000.

Date of Decision: August 17, 2017

Boleslavksy v. Travco Insurance Co., No. 151000886, 2017 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 257 (Phila. C.C.P. Aug. 17, 2017) (Anders, J.)

AUGUST 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: “A PLETHORA OF CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS” DOES NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM OF BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

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.)

AUGUST 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH IN CLAIMS HANDLING OR POLICY INTERPRETATON (Philadelphia Commerce Court)

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)

AUGUST 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH WHERE THE INSURED OBFUSCATED THE CLAIMS HANDLING PROCESS AND REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER (Philadelphia Federal)

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.)

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

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.)

JULY 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: NO BAD FAITH WHERE INSURER’S DENIAL WAS BASED ON A REASONABLE INVESTIGATION (Middle District)

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.

 

JUNE 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: REFUSING A POLICY LIMITS DEMAND, STANDING ALONE, CANNOT BE BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

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.)

jersey-shore-4