APRIL 2009 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT ORDERS MUDDLED CLAIM TO BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Dileo v. State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the plaintiff insured alleged a statutory bad faith claim, and included in his pleaded allegations that Pennsylvania’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) and Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations (UCSPR) had been violated.  The defendant carrier pointed out that there are no private civil causes of action under the UIPA or the UCSPR and sought dismissal.  Plaintiff claimed that he wasn’t pleading these as separate causes of action, but as evidence of bad faith under the statutory claim.

Since both sides agreed a bad faith claim had been stated for purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss in any event, the judge directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that specifically set out each separate cause of action actually being pleaded.

Date of Decision:  January 26, 2009

Dileo v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, No. 3:08cv1218, , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5089 (M.D. Pa.  Jan. 26, 2009) (Munley, J.)

0 Responses to “APRIL 2009 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT ORDERS MUDDLED CLAIM TO BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED (Middle District)”


Comments are currently closed.