In Detwiler v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, one party was to make the other an additional insured on a policy.  It did so, but the insurance carrier refused to provide a defense, as the insured was not a named party, to the additional insured.  The Court observed that the insurer’s alleged bad faith in not providing a defense or coverage did not obligate the insured to step into the insurer’s shoes.

Date of Decision:  October 22, 2009

Detwiler v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-3495, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98214 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 22, 2009) (Fullam, J.)

In Cogley v. Allstate Ins. Co., a pro se plaintiff brought breach of contract and bad faith claims.  The Court applied the new plausibility standards on a federal motion to dismiss, looking at whether the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary elements, and, if, in view of the facts alleged, it can be reasonably conceived that the plaintiff could, upon a trial, establish a case that would entitle him to relief, the motion to dismiss should not be granted. It also gave a liberal construction in plaintiff’s favor because he was pro se.  The court concluded: “The terms of the contract, their meaning and the circumstances surrounding the claim are best determined after discovery has taken place. At that time, defendant may move for summary judgment, if appropriate. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint will, therefore, be denied without prejudice.”

Date of Decision:  October 21, 2009

Cogley v. Allstate Ins. Co.,  U. S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 09-852, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97468 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 21, 2009) (Lancaster, J.)

In McCleester v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Plaintiff’s windshield was struck with a rock while he was driving.  The rock broke through the windshield and hit Plaintiff’s right arm, resulting in serious and permanent injury.  Plaintiff had an automobile insurance policy with State Farm that provided first party wage loss benefits in accordance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.  The terms of Plaintiff’s policy provided that income benefits would be paid “with respect to bodily injury to an insured arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.”  The policy did not define “maintenance” or “use.”  Plaintiff made a claim for wage loss benefits, which State Farm denied stating the injury did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, but instead, was caused by an intervening act committed by a third party.  Plaintiff sued State Farm for bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371.

The focus of the Court’s inquiry was whether the injury arose out of Plaintiff’s use of the vehicle.  The Court held that the vehicle must be more than merely incidental to the injury, and that it must be the instrumentality that caused the injury.  The Court found that Plaintiff’s injuries were not “vehicle-caused, but instead, were the result of the intentional and criminal act of a third-party.” Accordingly, the Court held that State Farm was not required to provide coverage and granted its motion for summary judgment.

Date of Decision: September 30, 2009

McCleester v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 3:CV*08-0010, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90345 (M.D. Pa. September 30, 2009)(Vanaskie, J.)