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

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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.)

0 Responses to “MAY 2009 BAD FAITH CASES
INSURER CANNOT ACT IN BAD FAITH WHEN RELYING ON INSURANCE DEPARTMENT REGULATION (Philadelphia Federal)”


Comments are currently closed.