Archive for the 'PA – Coverage Issues' Category

NO COVID-19 LOSS COVERAGE DUE, NO COMMON LAW BAD FAITH POSSIBLE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The court found no coverage due for the insured’s business interruption losses resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.  For those interested in the court’s reasoning on this hotly litigated issue, the opinion can be found here. Today, we limit ourselves to insurance bad faith law issues only.

The insured did not pursue a statutory bad faith claim, but only a common law claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  Having found no coverage due, Judge Gallagher, rejected the common law bad faith claim, stating:

‘[T]o recover under a claim of bad faith,’ the insured must show that the insurer ‘did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying the claim.’ ” Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, … (quoting Terletsky v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 649 A.2d 680, 688 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)); see also Treadways LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 467 F. App’x 143, 147 (3d Cir. 2012) (“Though we have held that bad faith may be found in circumstances other than an insured’s refusal to pay, ‘[a] reasonable basis is all that is required to defeat a claim of bad faith.’ ” (quoting J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co. v. Pilosi, 393 F.3d 356, 367 (3d Cir. 2004))).

“Pennsylvania courts have held that if the insurer properly denied a claim, the policyholder is unable to state a bad faith claim.” Kahn, … (citing Cresswell v. Pa. Nat’l Cas. Ins. Co., 820 A.2d 172, 179 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003)). AGLIC properly denied Boscov’s insurance claims, so it did not act in bad faith. AGLIC’s alleged “failure to investigate” the matter also does not amount to bad faith. … Simply put, there was “nothing to investigate: coverage d[id] not exist on the face of [Boscov’s] claim[s].” Clear Hearing Sols., LLC v. Cont’l Cas. Co., … (rejecting bad faith claim premised on insurer’s denial of insurance coverage “without conducting any investigation”); Ultimate Hearing Sols. II, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., … (same).

Date of Decision:  June 30, 2021

Boscov’s Department Store, Inc. v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., No. 5:20-CV-03672-JMG, 2021 WL 2681591 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2021) (Gallagher, J.)

COVERAGE DUE, BUT NO BAD FAITH WHERE (1) REASONABLE INVESTIGATION AND (2) REASONABLY DEBATABLE BASIS TO DECLINE COVERAGE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The case centered on a dispute over whether the plaintiff had an insurable interest in its tenant’s property improvements.  The carrier denied coverage for damage to those improvements, asserting the policy did not cover tenant improvements.  The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.

The court found the policy did provide coverage, and ruled for the insured on its breach of contract claim.

On bad faith, the insured alleged the insurer both failed to investigate and that it unreasonably denied coverage.  Magistrate Judge Rice disagreed, finding the insured “lacks clear and convincing evidence that [the insurer] investigated and handled the claim in bad faith or denied coverage without a reasonable basis.”

First, a seven-month delay in the claim handling process was reasonable in light of the insurer’s very detailed and active investigation into the claim.

Second, even though the insurer incorrectly denied coverage, “[b]ecause Pennsylvania courts have held that insurable interest is generally decided by the jury … and there was testimony … contradicting [the insured’] expectation of benefit from the improvements, [the insurer] had sufficient reasonable basis to support its coverage decision.” The court’s own “analysis demonstrates … the existence of an insurable interest as a matter of law is a close question subject to reasonable debate.”

Date of Decision:  June 11, 2021

Greentree Properties Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-4646, 2021 WL 2400727 (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2021) (Rice, M.J.)

NO BAD FAITH BASED ON DELAY OR “LOW-BALL” OFFER; POLICY LIMIT IS NOT THE DE FACTO VALUE OF A CLAIM (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Eastern District Judge Pratter provides a clear discussion on allegations of delay and valuation that do not make out a bad faith claim.

This underinsured motorist coverage breach of contract and bad faith case focused on a dispute over whether the insured was entitled to stacked benefits.  The insured had waived stacking, but asserted that the insurer’s failure to send new waiver forms when she added additional vehicles negated that waiver.  She pleaded serious personal injuries, and that the insurer only offered $4,500 on the claim.

First, Judge Pratter found the insured failed to plead a plausible claim for bad faith delay.  “Although this complaint alleges the accident took place in January 2020, it does not allege when [the insured] noticed her intent to seek UIM coverage or when [the insurer] transmitted its offer. So, the complaint fails to plead the length of the alleged delay, let alone whether it was unreasonable.”

There were no allegations the insured made a timely demand or that the insurer failed to investigate or conducted an unreasonable investigation. At best, the insured’s argument was that the insured offered $4,500, and when compared to her alleged injuries, this was facially unreasonable.  Judge Pratter did not accept this argument, observing that “the pleadings must provide sufficient allegations from which the Court can plausibly infer that [the insurer] knew or recklessly disregarded a lack of a reasonable basis to deny benefits.”

The complaint revealed “a “’normal dispute between an insured and insurer over the value of a UIM claim’ which is itself predicated on a dispute over [the insured’s] entitlement to stacked coverage limits.” Judge Pratter describes the coverage disagreement as a “live dispute that motivates both the declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims. An insurer’s refusal to pay the policy limit when it disputes that the insured is entitled to any such coverage at all is not evidence of unreasonable conduct that would support a bad faith claim.”

Finally, on bad faith, Judge Patter states that a “low-ball” offer by itself is not necessarily bad faith.  “The complaint contains no allegations that [the insured] submitted documentation of the extent of her injuries to support her position such that she is entitled to the policy limit. A policy limit is just that—the ultimate maximum that an insured could theoretically recover. It is not the de facto value of a claim.”

Judge Pratter did give leave to amend the bad faith claim, but only if the insured could plead within the parameters set out in the Court’s opinion.

Date of Decision:  June 7, 2021

Brown v. LM General Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 21-2134, 2021 WL 2333626 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2021) (Pratter, J.)

BAD FAITH CLAIM WITHSTANDS MOTION TO DISMISS AFTER BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM HELD VIABLE (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involves coverage claims for water damage during a construction project.  The insurer refused coverage, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  The insurer unsuccessfully moved to dismiss both claims.

First, the court found there was an issue of fact concerning the coverage denials.  Thus, the court refused to dismiss the breach of contract claim.

As to the bad faith claim, plaintiff alleged two specific instances of the insurer improperly rejecting the claims, and that the insurer “failed to conduct a proper analysis to support its denial.” Additionally, the insureds alleged there was an “inadequate process in reviewing their claim, including over fifty alleged points of bad-faith conduct, evinc[ing] a clear effort to ‘unreasonably and unfairly den[y] and/or delay[ ] payment of benefits’ to Plaintiffs that the Defendant ‘knew, or should have known, … should have been paid.’”

The insurer’s argument relied upon the position that there must be a predicate breach of contract, and the breach of contract claim should fail.  However, as set forth above, the court already found the insureds pleaded a viable breach of contract claim, “and Plaintiffs subsequently alleged facts sufficient to state a bad faith claim….” Thus, Judge Mariani denied the motion to dismiss the bad faith claim as well as the contract claim.

Date of Decision:  June 3, 2021

Signature Building Systems of Pennsylvania, LLC v. Motorist Mutual Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:20-CV-2348, 2021 WL 2269980 (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2021) (Mariani, J.)

BAD FAITH CLAIM PREMATURE IN LIGHT OF ONGOING APPRAISAL PROCESS; UTPCPL DOES NOT APPLY TO CLAIM HANDLING (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involves a first party fire loss to the insured’s home.  The insured’s public adjuster estimated damages at over $300,000. The insurer’s adjuster issued a number of reports that consecutively lowered the damage estimate. The final report was less than a ¼ of the plaintiff’s estimate. These differences resulted in the carrier invoking the appraisal process, which was pending at the time this suit was filed.

The insured sued the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).  The last three claims also were made against the carrier’s independent adjuster.

The court dismissed the breach of contract claim because the matter was subject to the ongoing appraisal process.  Judge Padova observed that while there is some right of appeal from the completed appraisal process, the scope of appeal is limited.  Dismissal was without prejudice to pursue those limited appellate rights after the appraisal process ended.  Judge Padova rejected the insured’s argument that this was actually a coverage dispute, rather than a valuation dispute.

Next, Judge Padova stayed the bad faith claim as premature. Because the appraisal process was ongoing, the carrier had never actually denied the claim.  Judge Padova did appear to recognize, however, the insured had pleaded a potential bad faith claim. This was based on allegations concerning the insurer’s involvement in the various decreasing loss estimates, which it allegedly knew were incorrect.

The fraud and UTPCPL claims failed to allege justifiable reliance, and were dismissed.

In addition, as to the UTPCPL claims, Judge Padova states:

Moreover, we note that recent Pennsylvania caselaw has stated that “[t]he UTPCPL applies to consumer transactions, which are statutorily defined[, and] the handling of an insurance claim does not meet the statutory definition.” … Under this authority, “[t]he UTPCPL applies to the sale of an insurance policy, it does not apply to the handling of insurance claims,” and the bad faith statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371, “provides the exclusive statutory remedy applicable to claims handling.” … Accordingly, for this reason as well, we conclude that Plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim, which is grounded on deceptive conduct in the handling of her insurance claim, cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Date of Decision:  June 1, 2021

Bussie v. American Security Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-3519, 2021 WL 2206282 (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2021) (Padova, J.)

BAD FAITH CLAIM PROCEEDS EVEN AFTER CONTRACT CLAIM DISMISSED FOR UNTIMELY FILING (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insurer denied auto theft coverage based on an exclusion.  The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith, and also alleged breach of a fiduciary duty. The carrier moved to dismiss the breach of contract and bad faith claims, and to strike the fiduciary duty language.

The court dismissed the breach of contract claim for failing to bring action within the time period required under the policy.

The court, however, allowed the insured’s bad faith claim to proceed.  The bad faith claim was based on an unreasonable investigation theory.  The court stated:

“On the existing record at this early stage of the litigation, [the insured] states a plausible claim for coverage and, while he will have to prove his bad faith claim by ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ … the allegations in the Complaint that [the insurer] failed to investigate his claim and knowingly set the date of loss outside the policy period “may … show bad faith.’ … Because [the] well-pleaded assertions of unreasonable claims processing and investigation adequately state a plausible bad faith claim under Section 8371, dismissal is not warranted and the Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Complaint is denied.”

The court did strike the allegation that the carrier’s breach of fiduciary duty constituted bad faith, observing:

In Keefe v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 218, 227–28 (3d Cir. 2000), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an insurer’s fiduciary obligations to an insured are limited to claims handling and resolution of third-party claims against an insured. “Under Pennsylvania law, a fiduciary duty higher than the duty of good faith and fair dealing does not arise out of an insurance contract until an insurer asserts a stated right under the policy to handle all claims asserted against the insured.” … Keefe has been applied to the cancellation of a life insurance policy and to policyholders’ uninsured and underinsured motorist claims where, like the present claim, the insurer has not asserted a right to resolve third-party claims against the insured. … Accordingly, given [the insured’s] failure to respond to the Motion to Strike, and the weight of precedential authority limiting an insurer’s fiduciary obligations to the resolution of third-party claims against an insured, the Motion to Strike is granted.

Date of Decision:  May 11, 2021

Peltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 21-0005, 2021 WL 1893125 (W.D. Pa. May 11, 2021) (Kelly, M.J.)

THE ROLE OF BAD FAITH IN AN EQUITABLE SUBROGATION CASE (Third Circuit – Pennsylvania Law)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, the Third Circuit addresses the elements of equitable subrogation between insurers, a useful opinion for coverage counsel dealing with insurer vs. insurer disputes.  Here, we only mention the role bad faith played in the court’s analysis.

This case involves the tragic Salvation Army building collapse in Philadelphia, where six people died and thirteen others were injured.  The neighboring property owner had hired a contractor to do construction work on its property. The improperly carried out work ultimately caused the building to collapse onto the neighboring Salvation Army building.

The property owner had a commercial general liability (CGL) policy on which it was a named insured.  The contractor also had its own insurance policy. This policy appeared to provide coverage to the property owner as an additional insured.

Over time, the CGL carrier, through counsel, repeatedly demanded that the contractor’s insurer provide a defense to the property owner as an additional insured.  The CGL carrier stated in one communication that a defense was due to the property owner as an additional insured, and that failure to provide such a defense was bad faith.

The contractor’s carrier eventually agreed to provide a defense to the property owner as an additional insured, under a reservation of rights. Eventually, the additional insured carrier withdrew its defense, and obtained a judgment rescinding its policy based on material misrepresentations the contractor made in the insurance application.

A court eventually found the contractor’s policy void ab initio. The contractor’s carrier, however, already had paid over $667,000 in defense costs for the property owner as an additional insured. The additional insurer brought the present claims for equitable subrogation and unjust enrichment against the property owner’s CGL carrier.

The district court rule in favor of the additional insurer, and had awarded almost all of the damages sought. The Third Circuit affirmed.

On the bad faith related issues, the Third Circuit found the following.

First, an insurer seeking equitable subrogation against another insurer has to show that in providing a defense and coverage, it acted to protect its own interest, and that it did not act as a volunteer.  In this case, while the contractor’s insurer might have believed the policy should have been rescinded, it did not have any judgment to that effect. Moreover, it had been threatened with a bad faith claim by the CGL carrier’s counsel.  The Third Circuit found this sufficient to establish that the contractor’s carrier acted in its own interest, and not as a volunteer, in providing a defense.

Second, the CGL carrier argued that the contractor’s carrier had unclean hands, and therefore could not obtain equitable relief. The Third Circuit rejected this argument. The panel observed that the unclean hands doctrine requires proof of fraud, unconscionable conduct, or bad faith affecting the balance of equities. The court could not find that the carrier’s conduct was unconscionable or affected the balance of equities between the two carriers.

Date of Decision:  April 27, 2021

Berkley Assurance Co. v. Colony Insurance Co., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 20-2673, 2021 WL 1625521 (3d Cir. Apr. 27, 2021) (Ambro, Rendell, Restrepo, JJ.)

WESTERN DISTRICT JUDGE WIEGAND ISSUES TWO BAD FAITH OPINIONS: (1) BAD FAITH CLAIM PLAUSIBLE WHERE COVERAGE ISSUES REMAIN OPEN (2) NO BAD FAITH FOR PRE-CONTRACT CONDUCT (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On April 16 and 21, 2021, Western District Judge Wiegand issued bad faith opinions.  In the first case, she allowed the claim to proceed, denying a motion to dismiss. In the second, the conduct at issue did not involve any benefit denial, but only alleged pre-contract deception, which is not subject to Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371.

CASE 1: BAD FAITH CLAIM STATED

In Maronda Homes, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, Judge Wiegand allowed an additional insured’s statutory bad faith claim to proceed, denying the insurer’s motion to dismiss.

The insurer rejected additional insured coverage, asserting (1) that the additional insured endorsement was not triggered through any alleged conduct of the named insured, and (2) that even if triggered, an exclusion applied. The additional insured raised claims for breach of contract, contractual bad faith, and statutory bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss all claims.

Judge Wiegand first rejected the insurer’s argument that the complaint did not allege any wrongdoing by the named insured that could trigger coverage under the additional insured endorsement.  She also found factual issues remained open as to whether coverage was excluded because the work was (1) completed or (2) put to its intended use. This could not be decided at the motion to dismiss state.

Judge Wiegand did dismiss the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing count. “[U]nder Pennsylvania law, a ‘claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is subsumed in a breach of contract claim.’” Thus, “a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ‘separate and distinct from a breach of contract claim’ cannot be maintained because ‘the covenant does nothing more than imply certain obligations into the contract itself.’”

By contrast, Judge Wiegand allowed the statutory bad faith claim to proceed. First, she observed that the policy exclusion at issue remained open and undecided, so the insurer could not argue the coverage denial was per se reasonable based on the policy exclusion language.  She then found the insured’s allegations that the insurer “failed to investigate Plaintiff’s tender of the claims, denied coverage despite cooperatively participating in attempts to settle the Underlying Actions, and rejected settlement offers … within the limits of the Policy … are sufficient at this stage to survive Defendant’s Motion.”

Date of Decision:  April 16, 2021

Maronda Homes, LLC v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:20-CV-01526-CCW, 2021 WL 1518009 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2021) (Wiegand, J.)

CASE 2: NO STATUTORY BAD FAITH POSSIBLE FOR PRE-POLICY CONDUCT

The second case involved a first party property damage claim, where a swimming pool popped out of the ground due to subsurface water pressure. A policy exclusion clearly excluded coverage for subsurface water pressure causing damages, but the insureds still pursued the claim.  They alleged that prior to purchasing the policy, the insurer’s agent led them to believe the policy would cover them for damages to in-ground pools “from foreseeable types of harm,” which equated to a promise concerning subsurface water pressure damage being covered.

After the coverage denial, the insureds brought claims to reform the policy to cover “pool popping,” for statutory bad faith, and for violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The insurer successfully moved to dismiss all claims.

First, Judge Wiegand found that the policy could not be reformed based on mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, or fraud.  She further found that this was not a case where the reasonable expectations doctrine would permit reformation of clear policy language.

Second, she dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.  As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made clear in Toy v. Metropolitan Life, the bad faith statute only applies when the insurer had denied a policy benefit.  Deceptive practices used to induce an insured to enter an unfavorable insurance policy do not fall within the bad faith statute’s ambit.

Finally, because the insureds did not plead justifiable reliance, there could be no UTPCPL claim.

Date of Decision: April 21, 2021

Palek v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:20-CV-00170-CCW, 2021 WL 1561507 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2021) (Wiegand, J.)

BANKRUPTCY COURT PERMITS BAD FAITH CLAIM TO PROCEED, EVEN AFTER BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM DISMISSED (Philadelphia Bankruptcy Court)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This is a rare bad faith case raised before a Bankruptcy Court in the context of an adversary proceeding.

The bankrupt/insureds brought a first party property damage claim against an excess insurer.  It is not fully clear from the record if the insureds were parties to the excess insurance agreement, which appears to be designed to protect a mortgage holder.  In any event, the court held there was nothing in the record that could establish excess coverage was triggered.  Thus, the court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding no excess coverage possibly due that could have invoked the insurance contract’s coverage obligations.

The absence of any benefits being due, however, did not stop the court from analyzing the bad faith claim, and ultimately allowing that claim to proceed.

As discussed many times in this blog, there is a serious issue about whether a statutory bad faith claim can proceed if the insurer has not denied any benefit under an insurance policy, i.e., payment of a first party claim or defense and indemnification under a liability insurance policy. This limitation appears to be the required by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Toy v. Metropolitan Life.  An article addressing this issue can be found here.  See also this January 2020 post, this March 2021 post, and this January 2021 post questioning whether the non-precedential Third Circuit decision in Gallatin Fuels failed to consider Toy in reaching the conclusion that it was possible to pursue a bad faith claim when no policy was even in effect at the time of the loss.

In the present adversary proceeding, the court chiefly relied on Gallatin Fuels for the proposition that statutory bad faith claims can be pursued even where no benefits are due because there is no enforceable insurance contract, solely based on claims of poor investigation practices and possible misrepresentations during the investigation.

The court also relied on Pennsylvania’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations in finding a potential basis for bad faith. In particular, the court cites, 31 Pa. Code § 146.6 (providing “that every insurer shall complete investigation of a claim within thirty days after notification of the claim unless it cannot reasonably be completed in that time. It further provides that if the investigation cannot be completed within that timeframe, every forty-five days thereafter, the insurer shall provide the claimant with a reasonable explanation for the delay and state when a decision on the claim may be expected.”)

Courts approach violations of the UIPA and UCSP regulations differently, ranging from a complete prohibition on considering their violation in proving statutory bad faith cases, to using those violations as evidence of bad faith.  Our May 2, 2019 post summarizes different approaches courts take in considering UIPA and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations.

Most recently on this Blog, we summarized Western District Magistrate Judge Dodge’s December 2020 Kleinz v. Unitrin opinion. Magistrate Judge Dodge found that since the seminal Terletsky opinion in 1994, “federal courts have uniformly rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on UIPA violations to support bad faith claims.” She found that contrary to the insured’s arguments that some federal cases hold otherwise, “for the past 26 years, case law in federal courts on this issue has been consistent.”  Magistrate Judge Dodge cites, among other cases, the Third Circuit’s opinion in Leach, Judge Gibson’s 2019 Horvath opinion, Judge Fisher’s 2014 Kelman decision (while sitting by designation in the Western District), Judge Kosik’s 2007 Oehlmann decision, and Judge Conti’s 2007 Loos opinion.

Some other recent opinions look unfavorably toward using UIPA and UCSP violations to make the statutory bad faith case. See, e.g., Judge Quiñones Alejandro’s December 2020 White Opinion, and Judge Wolson’s April 2020 Live Face decision. In his March 2020 Clapps decision, Judge Darnell Jones notes that while there is no private right of action under the UIPA or UCSP regulations, there might be some circumstances where their violation might be the premise for a bad faith case.

All that being said, the bad faith claim was allowed to proceed in this case, in light of claim handling conduct that clearly troubled the court.

Date of Decision:  April 15, 2021

In Re Lena D. Lewis, Debtor, Lewis v. U.S. Bank National Association, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. AP 18-00240-AMC, 2021 WL 1424721 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2021) (Chan, J.)

NO BAD FAITH WHERE INSURER’S POSITION ON COVERAGE WAS CORRECT, AND OTHER ISSUES WERE BELATEDLY RAISED POST-TRIAL (Third Circuit)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Third Circuit’s precedential decision focused primarily on what constitutes a sufficient writing to request lower underinsured motorist limits under 75 Pa. C.S. § 1734. That statute only provides there must be a “request in writing”.  After close analysis, the panel determined that such a request can effectively be made in the insurance application itself, without the need for using a specialized form.

“The statute says little beyond that [there must be a request in writing]. But that silence speaks volumes. As we reiterate today, the statute means what it says: an insured can make that choice ‘in writing’ in any writing as long as the choice is clear.”

In this case, the insured requested lower than the maximum UIM limits in her written insurance application.  After suffering a serious injury, and despite the application asking for lower limits and the policy being issued with those lower limits, the insured demanded the maximum UIM limits allowed by statute.

She argued the application request was not binding because she had not filled out a separate form the insurer itself provided, which was designed for the insured to expressly acknowledge she was accepting these lower limits.  The insurer took the position that even without the insurer filling out the acknowledgment form, the written request in the application was sufficient to set lower limits for UIM coverage, and refused to pay full limits allowed by the statute.

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  The district court agreed with the insured on the policy limit issued, but dismissed the bad faith claim. The case proceeded to trial and jury awarded $1.75 million, which the trial judge molded to $750,000 to meet the UIM maximum, rather than the lower sum requested in the application.

A summary of the trial court’s decision can be found here.

For the reasons stated above, the Third Circuit reversed and found the lower limit requested in the application controlling. It ordered the trial court to mold the verdict to $300,000.

The Third Circuit did affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the insured’s bad faith claim.  The insured tried to attack the bad faith claim’s dismissal, post-verdict, via a motion for reconsideration.

  1. First, the appellate panel agreed with the trial court that the jury verdict was irrelevant to bad faith, and that the trial court should solely look “at the actions and omissions of [the insurer] to evaluate [the insured’s] claim when it was submitted and then processed. [Note:  We recently posted on a New Jersey federal decision similarly rejecting this type of “hindsight” bad faith analysis.]

  2. As the arguments were presented by motion for reconsideration, there had to be some new facts that did not exist or could not have been discovered at the time of the original decision. The Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured’s efforts in this regard failed, as the facts she wanted to adduce were not new.

  3. The insured failed to request certain documents in discovery, e.g., the insurer’s Best Practices Manual, and gave no justification. Further, the Rule 26(f) report revealed early on the insurer’s position about the lower limit in the application controlling the UIM policy limits.  Thus, there was no basis for reconsideration involving discovery activities.

  4. In bringing and pursuing her case, the insured did not argue the insurer acted in bad faith on the basis of misrepresenting the scope of coverage, even though she had information allegedly supporting such a claim before trial. Rather, she “chose instead to base [the] bad faith claim on an alleged failure … to investigate the [insured’s] claim.” The court would not allow the insured belatedly to bring up the misrepresentation based claim, finding there should be no second bite at the apple.

  5. The Third Circuit observed that an insurer can defeat a bad faith claim if there “is evidence of a reasonable basis for the insurer’s actions or inaction.” In this case, the insurer believed the application constituted a sufficient writing under section 1734 to reduce UIM coverage limits. The Third Circuit found the insurer’s belief, “not only reasonable but correct.” Thus, its “reliance on the lower UM/UIM coverage limits in informing its investigation and settlement offers was therefore not deceptive.”

Date of Decision:  April 8, 2021

Gibson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 20-1589, 2021 WL 1310777 (3d Cir. Apr. 8, 2021) (Hardiman, Pratter, Roth, JJ.)