MAY 2006 BAD FAITH CASES
SUPERIOR COURT REJECTS LULLING ARGUMENT ASSERTED TO TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON BAD FAITH CLAIM (Superior Court)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s determination that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the statute of limitations.  Plaintiff asserted that the two-year limitation clause in the insurance contract should be suspended because Harleysville participated in the filing of related arson charges; however, the intermediate appellate court disagreed, as Plaintiff could point to no such evidence of record.

In addition, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiff’s bad faith claim, but on the different grounds, i.e., that the bad faith claim was also time barred.  The Court based its decision on the determination that Harleysville’s actions did not have any impact on Plaintiff’s ability to seek recourse for the denial of coverage under the policy.

Specifically, Harleysville did not lull Plaintiff from pursuing her rights under the policy when it reopened its investigation of Plaintiff’s claim and actively sought information before issuing a second denial letter.

Date of Decision:  May 2, 2006

Jones v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., Superior Court of PA, No. 1060 WDA 2005,  2006 PA Super 100 (Pa. Super. May 2, 2006) (Del Sole, P.J.E.)

0 Responses to “MAY 2006 BAD FAITH CASES
SUPERIOR COURT REJECTS LULLING ARGUMENT ASSERTED TO TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON BAD FAITH CLAIM (Superior Court)”


Comments are currently closed.