Monthly Archive for May, 2016
In Morris v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, a UIM case, the Court provided a compact opinion addressing a wide range of discovery issues, and a motion to bifurcate the breach of contract and bad faith claims. The issues relating to the bad faith claim are summarized as follows:
-
The motion to bifurcate was denied. The court found there was “an overlap in the issues of the separate claims, and that having one trial would better serve judicial economy.”
-
The court recognized “generally that an expert opinion is not required in bad faith cases, [but] there are times when expert testimony is appropriate.” Here, the court found testimony from the insured’s expert “would be helpful to the jury, but [the expert was] precluded from offering any legal conclusions.” The court rejected the argument that report contained no legal conclusions, and found there were portions that went to the ultimate issues in this case and would not be permitted in the final report.
-
The insurer was required to produce reserve information for a two year period, in line with a prior order.
-
The court precluded any evidence, argument, comment or reference to any other claims or litigation to which [the insurer] is or has ever been a party, at any time during the course of the trial.”
-
The insurer had asserted the allegations concerning the insured’s conduct as a defense and the insured sought to preclude evidence of that defense. The court ruled this was premature, and should be addressed via trial objections.
-
The court rejected the insured’s effort to preclude payments by the tortfeasor. The amount paid is relevant to the bad faith claim.
Date of Decision: May 3, 2016
Morris v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:12-cv-1664, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58948 (M.D. Pa. May 3, 2016) (Kosik, J.)
In Lenick Construction, Inc. v. Selective Way Insurance Company, the insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims against the insurer in connection with an underlying suit involving material construction defects and breaches of warranty. The insured, working as a subcontractor in the construction of a condominium project, was sued by the condominium association after owners found defects in the units which caused water infiltration, leaks, and cracks in the drywall.
The insurer originally denied the insured’s demand for a defense and indemnification in the underlying suit, but eventually agreed to defend the insured subject to a reservation of rights. The insured then filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment as to the insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify it in the underlying suit. The insurer argued that any liability the insured would face arose from its own faulty workmanship, in breach of its contractual duties. Therefore, the property damage at issue was not caused by an “occurrence” and was not covered.
The insured also asserted bad faith, arguing that the insurer denied benefits under the policy without a reasonable basis, and knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of reasonable basis when denying the claim. The court disagreed. It found no duty to defend because the allegations arose out of faulty workmanship in performance of a contract, which was not an “occurrence” under the policy. Additionally, the court found that the insurer had no duty to indemnify because the claims were not potentially within the scope of the policy’s coverage. As the insurer was under no duty to defend or indemnify, the court determined that the insurer’s interpretation of the policy was not made with knowing or reckless disregard of whether the denial of coverage was reasonable, and accordingly did not act in bad faith.
Date of Decision: March 23, 2016
In Darwin National Assurance Company v. Luzerne County Transportation Authority, the Court held that an insurer who correctly denied benefits under an insurance policy did not act in bad faith.
The insured was the former operations manager of the Luzerne County Transportation Authority and had been criminally charged with conspiring to defraud the PA Department of Transportation. The insured submitted a claim for defense and indemnity to the insurer who accepted the claim, but determined that the insured could only collect $100,000 from the policy.
The insured disagreed, arguing that he was entitled to $1 million. The insured later brought a claim for bad faith, alleging that the insurer’s refusal to pay $1 million in policy proceeds was frivolous and unfounded.
In denying the Insured’s bad faith claim, the Court held that because the insurer’s interpretation of the policy was correct, the insured could not make out the first element of a bad faith claim – that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits. The Court emphasized that the insurer did not deny benefits outright, but merely found that coverage was limited to $100,000 and even tendered payments towards the insured’s defense costs.
Date of Decision: March 30, 2016
This is our 1200th post summarizing individual bad faith cases since beginning this blog 9 years and 11 months ago. The ongoing presence of bad faith litigation represented by just these available opinions reflects the persistence of bad faith claims as a regular presence in insurance coverage litigation.
In Leboon v. Zurich American Insurance Company, the court stated that: “[T]he duty to negotiate a settlement in good faith arises from the insurance policy and is owed to the insured, not to a third-party claimant.” In that case, the party that had sued the insured subsequently sought to bring bad faith claims against the insurer for failure to settle that plaintiff’s claims against the insured. The court stated that the insurer’s fiduciary duty ran solely to its insureds, and that the underlying plaintiff was a stranger to the insured-insurer relationship. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice.
Date of Decision April 18, 2016
Leboon v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-05904, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51381 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2016) (Pappert, J.)
In Linko v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance, the insured alleged he made monthly insurance payments towards insurance on a particular truck, and that he had insurance on the truck with the insurer. The insurer denied this, stating it had no record of his purchasing insurance. The insurer refused coverage when the truck was involved in an accident, and the insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim for merely pleading conclusory allegations of law.
The court denied the insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s bad faith claim. The court found that the insured pleaded an unreasonable denial of benefits, and that dismissal would be premature.
While some paragraphs in the complaint could be viewed as legal conclusions, the court read those paragraphs “in conjunction with [the] more specific allegations in his breach of contract claim.” These factual allegations bolstered the claim of unreasonable denial of benefits, and were read to support a bad faith cause of action for failure to objectively and fairly evaluate the insured’s claim, and failure to “promptly offer payment of the reasonable and fair value of the claim to plaintiff.”
Date of Decision: April 18, 2016
Linko v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins., No. 3:15cv2066, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51602 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2016) (Munley, J.)
In GEICO v. Korn, the court addressed what it called a muddled claim that appeared to be for bad faith. The claim referenced both New Jersey’s Insurance Trade Practices Act and Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, neither of which allow for a private cause of action. The insured also pleaded that the insured had “failed to act in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become perfectly clear.” The court dismissed the insureds’ claim without prejudice, and with leave to amend.
Date of Decision: April 21, 2016
GEICO v. Korn, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53210 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2016) (Bumb, J.)
