Archive for the 'PA – Claims Handling (reasonable)' Category

NO BAD FAITH POSSIBLE WHEN CARRIER CONDUCTS A REASONABLE REVIEW, AND MAKES ITS DETERMINATION BASED UPON AN EXPERT REPORT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like yesterday’s post, an insurer’s reliance on an expert report precluded bad faith.

The case involved first party coverage for a home heating oil spill.  The coverage issues involved whether the leak was caused by ongoing corrosion or was sudden and accidental, and/or or was subject to a pollution exclusion. The carrier denied coverage, and the insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims. The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment on all counts.

No Coverage Due for Ongoing Corrosion and Under Pollution Exclusion

As to the corrosion issue, the insurer provided an unrefuted expert engineering report stating that long-term corrosion caused the leak. Thus, there were no dispute of fact on this coverage issue, warranting summary judgment for the insurer.

As to the pollution exclusion, the court did an exhaustive analysis of the case law on pollution exclusions and home heating oil.  Magistrate Judge Hey found, under the circumstances of this case, home heating oil qualified as a pollutant. “Here, Plaintiff contacted an environmental services firm about remediation and provided the court with the soil analysis identifying the same chemicals as were present in the soil in [prior precedent], and provided ample evidence that those chemicals were considered hazardous or pollutants.” Thus, “the record here presents more than sufficient evidence to allow the Court to apply the pollution exclusion to the facts of this case.”

No Bad Faith in Light of Expert Report

The court did not address the issue of whether the statutory bad faith claim had to be denied as a matter of law because no coverage was due. Rather, the court analyzed bad faith solely based on the quality of the insurer’s investigation.

Magistrate Judge Hey states, “[i]n order to determine whether an insurer acted in bad faith in conducting an investigation into whether an insured was entitled to benefits, courts have looked to the following: Judges of this court have held that an insurance company’s substantial and thorough investigation of an insurance claim, forming the basis of a company’s refusal to make or continue making benefit payments, establishes a reasonable basis that defeats a bad faith claim …. To defeat a bad faith claim, the insurance company need not show that the process used to reach its conclusion was flawless or that its investigatory methods eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusion. Rather, an insurance company simply must show that it conducted a review or investigation sufficiently thorough to yield a reasonable foundation for its action.”

In this case, the court found the carrier “had a reasonable basis for its decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim based on the engineering report finding that the leak was caused by long-term corrosion, excluded by the policy, and that the heating oil was a pollutant based on environmental testing, government regulations and prior caselaw. Plaintiff has presented no evidence presenting a genuine issue of material fact in this regard.”

Thus, the insurer had a reasonable basis to deny the claim.

Biela v. Westfield Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 19-4383, 2021 WL 181432 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2021) (Hey, M.J.)

NO BAD FAITH FOR EVEN NEGLIGENT CLAIM HANDLING, AND WHERE INSURER’S POSITION WAS SUPPORTED BY AN EXPERT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This UIM bad faith case had survived a motion to dismiss, but summary judgment ended the plaintiff’s bad faith claim.

Eastern District Judge Leeson had originally allowed the bad faith claim to proceed, as plaintiff had alleged more than a valuation dispute.  Our prior blog post can be found here.

The present bad faith summary judgment motion was before Magistrate Judge Perkin. His opinion goes through the claim handling history in minute detail.  Among other things, it shows nearly a year passed before the insured provided the claim handlers with all medical records and details on the specific injuries for which he was seeking full UIM policy limits.  The record shows the insurer assigned a specialist in medical resources (SMR) to review the medical file, and later had a medical examination performed by a physician. Discovery appeared to show potential errors in the SMR’s evaluation.

Based on the medical reviews, the insurer had not paid its full UIM limits, as plaintiff demanded, at the time suit was filed.  The insured challenged the conclusions of both the SMR and the physician on the origin and scope of his injuries in bringing the bad faith claim.

Magistrate Judge Perkin observed that an “insurance company need not show that the process used to reach its conclusion was flawless or that its investigatory methods eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusions. Rather, an insurance company simply must show that it conducted a review or investigation sufficiently thorough to yield a reasonable foundation for its action.”  Thus, “[e]ven if Defendant’s claims-handling processes were not ideal, there is no evidence in the record, let alone clear and convincing evidence, to indicate that Defendant’s purported mishandling of Plaintiff’s claim was motivated by a dishonest purpose or ill will.”

Citing older case law, the court states, “while under Pennsylvania law bad faith may extend to an insurer’s investigation and other conduct in handling the claim, that conduct must ‘import a dishonest purpose.’” “Invariably, this requires that the insurer lack a reasonable basis for denying coverage, as mere negligence or aggressive protection of an insurer’s interests is not bad faith.”

[Note: In 2017, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court made clear in Rancosky that “we hold that proof of an insurance company’s motive of self-interest or ill-will is not a prerequisite to prevailing in a bad faith claim under Section 8371, as argued by Appellant. While such evidence is probative of the second Terletsky prong, we hold that evidence of the insurer’s knowledge or recklessness as to its lack of a reasonable basis in denying policy benefits is sufficient.” A link to our Rancosky summary can be found here.]

Applying this law to the facts, Magistrate Judge Perkin found that “[a]lthough the plaintiff disagrees with the conclusions of both [the SMR and the carrier’s physician], it is clear that [the carrier] had a reasonable basis to value the claim based, at a minimum, on [the physician’s] report.” Assuming that the SMR “performed an insufficient and incorrect medical review of Plaintiff’s case, Defendant did not deny Plaintiff’s claim based upon that review, but rather continued its investigation of Plaintiff’s claim. Moreover, it is not apparent on the record that Defendant has ever denied coverage to Plaintiff.”

As to how the insurer handled the various bodily injury claims, the plaintiff’s doctors had sourced these all to the auto accident at issue, while the carrier’s physician only identified some of these injuries as being caused by the accident. Thus, Magistrate Judge Perkin found:

“Similarly, the fact that the plaintiff’s experts relate all of the plaintiff’s right knee and left ankle complaints to the accident does not provide a basis for bad faith. Defendant retained [an] orthopedic surgeon … to perform an independent medical examination and records review. After completing same, [defendant’s surgeon] concluded that that only the plaintiff’s initial meniscal tear and resultant arthroscopic surgery were related to the accident. None of the plaintiff’s left ankle complaints/treatments, or additional right knee treatment, was accident-related. Accordingly, [the carrier] had a reasonable basis for its claim handling.”

Date of Decision:  January 13, 2021

Perez-Garcia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. CV 18-3783, 2021 WL 131343 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2021) (Perkin, M.J.)

NO PLAUSIBLE BAD FAITH CLAIM WHERE THERE IS SIMPLY A VALUATION DISPUTE OR REFUSAL TO IMMEDIATELY PAY POLICY LIMIT DEMAND (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured failed to plead a plausible claim in this UM bad faith case.

The 18-year old insured was rear-ended by an uninsured motorist, and suffered a long list of injuries. She had $100,000 in UM coverage.  The carrier offered $11,300 to settle her claims, and rejected a policy limit demand.  The insured brought breach of contract and statutory bad faith claims, and the insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim.

In determining whether a plaintiff states a plausible bad faith claim, a court must separate conclusory allegations from factual allegations, because conclusory allegations are not entitled to an assumption of truth for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes.

Here, the complaint alleges at least 16 bases for bad faith (listed below). Magistrate Judge Schwab found, however, the complaint “contains mostly conclusory statements that are not supported by factual allegations.” Thus, “[a]lthough long, [the insured’s] list of how the defendant allegedly acted in bad faith contains conclusions, rather than facts.”

Magistrate Judge Schwab cites a number of cases finding these sorts of allegations to be conclusory, including Middle District Judge Caputo’s 2019 Peters decision, 2017 Meyers decision, and 2012 Sypeck decision, Middle District Judge Rambo’s 2018 Rickell decision, Middle District Judge Caldwell’s 2010 Muth decision, as well as the Third Circuit’s frequently cited 2012 Smith decision.

Next, in looking at the factual allegations, the insured merely alleges she was diagnosed with certain injuries, went through physical therapy, gave the insurer notice of her claim, and forwarded various records for the insurer’s review. The insured’s counsel spoke with the insurer’s claims department, and made the carrier aware the insured was 18 at the time of the accident, continued to suffer from visual impairment and post-traumatic headaches, among other injuries, as a result of the head trauma she suffered, and that the insurer offered $11,300 to settle.

“These factual allegations, however, are not enough to state a bad faith claim upon which relief can be granted.”

A disagreement over a claim’s value, without the facts needed to show bad faith, cannot alone create bad faith. Here, the insured did not allege “facts to support an inference that the defendant did not have a reasonable basis for its settlement offer or that the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded any lack of a reasonable basis for such an offer.” Citing the Third Circuit’s Smith decision (above), Judge Caputo’s 2019 Clarke decision and 2019 Moran decision, Eastern District Judge Baylson’s June 2020 Dietz decision, Middle District Judge Kane’s 2019 Rosenthal decision, and the 2009 Superior Court Johnson decision, Magistrate Judge Schwab observes that low but reasonable settlement offers do not constitute bad faith, and that a “low-ball” offer, standing alone, cannot make out a bad faith claim.

Nor can refusing immediately to pay a policy limit demand by itself constitute bad faith. “Indeed, courts have consistently held that a dispute or discrepancy in the valuation of a claim between the insurer and the insured is not alone indicative of bad faith.” The insured simply did not plead facts “from which it can plausibly be inferred that the defendant’s offer was unreasonable and made in bad faith, rather than made as part of the ordinary course of negotiations between insurers and insureds.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Magistrate Judge Schwab dismissed the bad faith claim, but with leave to amend. This allowed for a second amended complaint to be filed “if appropriate, to state a bad faith claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Durdach v. LM General Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:20-CV-00926, 2021 WL 84174 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2021) (Schwab, M.J.)

The litany of conclusory allegations referenced above, include:

  1. unreasonably delay[ing] the processing of a valid claim;

  2. kn[owingly] or recklessly disregard[ing] the fact that the delay was unreasonable;

  3. failing to objectively and fairly evaluate Plaintiff’s claim;

  4. engaging in dilatory and abusive claims handling;

  5. failing to adopt or implement reasonable standards in evaluating Plaintiff’s claim;

  6. acting unreasonably and unfairly in response to Plaintiff’s claim;

  7. not attempting in good faith to effectuate a fair, prompt, and equitable settlement of Plaintiff’s claim in which the Defendant’s liability under the policy had become reasonably clear;

  8. subordinating the interests of its insured and those entitled under its insured’s coverage to its own financial monetary interests;

  9. failing to promptly offer reasonable payment to the Plaintiff;

  10. failing to reasonably and adequately investigate Plaintiff’s claim; k. failing to reasonably and adequately evaluate or review the medical documentation in Defendant’s possession;

  11. violating the fiduciary duty owed to the Plaintiff;

  12. acting unreasonably and unfairly by withholding underinsured motorist benefits justly due and owing to the Plaintiff;

  13. failing to make an honest, intelligent, and objective settlement offer;

  14. causing Plaintiff to expend money on the presentation of her claim; and

  15. failing to make a reasonable settlement offer despite knowing the severity of a visual injury and post-traumatic headaches in an 18-year old.

[The insured] also alleges that the defendant failed to act in good faith and “engaged in wanton and reckless conduct….”

NO COVID-19 BUSINESS LOSS COVERAGE DUE; NO BAD FAITH FOR DENIAL OF COVERAGE OR FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

These two Covid-19 coverage cases ended in summary judgments against the insureds on their breach of contract and statutory bad faith claims.  Eastern District Judge Kenney decided both cases last Thursday (1/14/2021).

Case 1: Clear Hearing Solutions v. Continental Casualty

Covid-19 Business Coverage Issues

In Clear Hearing Solutions, the insured had two all-risk policies.  Plaintiffs were Pennsylvania entities, but they had hearing service stores closed in Maryland and North Carolina due to government shutdowns.  The insureds alleged they were entitled to “Business Income coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, Extended Business Income coverage, and Civil Authority coverage,” but the carrier denied coverage.

Judge Kenney observed that direct physical loss of property or damage to property were essential to all these coverages.  He followed the principles that “[t]he criteria for physical loss caused by a source unnoticeable to the naked eye is thus whether the functionality of the…property was nearly eliminated or destroyed, or whether the[ ] property was made useless or uninhabitable by that source.” (internal quotation marks omitted) The mere presence of the contaminating source material, however, “or the general threat of future damage from that presence, lacks the distinct and demonstrable character necessary for first-party insurance coverage.”

Judge Kenney states:

The Court agrees with and adopts the conclusion reached by another Court in this district. In 4431, Inc. et al v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos., the Court concluded that, “under Pennsylvania law, for Plaintiffs to assert an economic loss resulting from their inability to operate their premises as intended within the coverage of the Policy’s ‘physical loss’ provision, the loss and the bar to operation from which it results must bear a causal relationship to some physical condition of the premises.” No. 5:20-cv-04396, 2020 WL 7075318, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2020) (emphasis in original). There must also be an “element correlating to [the] extent of operational utility – i.e., a premises must be uninhabitable and unusable, or nearly as such.” Id; see also Brian Handel D.M.D. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 20-3198, 2020 WL 6545893 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2020) (finding Port Authority and Hardinger preclude a finding of “direct physical loss of or damage to” property where it remained inhabitable and usable, albeit in limited ways). In sum, while structural damage is not required to show “direct physical loss of” property, the source that destroys the property’s utility must have something to do with the physical condition of the premises.

The Clear Hearing insureds conceded there was no Covid-19 on the premises, and their losses resulted from government directed business closures.  “Because Clear Hearing expressly denies the existence of anything affecting the physical condition of its premises, its losses are a mere loss of use untethered to the physical condition of the property itself. Reading ‘direct physical loss of or damage to property’ to contemplate mere loss of use is not a reasonable interpretation because it renders two other Policy provisions superfluous or nonsensical.”

Judge Kenney then goes into a more detailed analysis as to why there is no covered physical damage or property loss from Covid-19, which are discussed in the opinion at length.

He further observes that simply because the policy lacks a virus exclusion, this does not create coverage by implication. “But ‘[a] loss which does not properly fall within the coverage clause cannot be regarded as covered thereby merely because it is not within any of the specific exceptions….’ And it is at least plausible that the physical manifestation of some type of virus could cause covered losses. That situation is just not present here.”

Judge Kenney also finds that the Maryland and North Carolina “government orders cannot constitute a covered cause of loss under either the Business Income and Extra Expense coverages or the Civil Authority Coverage provisions.”  Further, there was no genuine factual issue “as to whether the government orders were issued due to physical loss of or damage to nearby property,” and the insured could not show access to the premises was prohibited entirely for all purposes by these government orders.

Bad Faith Issues

[Note: We have observed numerous times over the years there is a strong argument that cognizable statutory bad faith claims in Pennsylvania require that the insured must have be denied an actual benefit, i.e., a payment of first party damages due or a refusal to defend and indemnify against third party claims due.  Thus, as repeated on this blog ad naseum, there is a genuine issue as to whether an independent statutory bad faith claim for poor investigation practices is cognizable when no coverage is otherwise due under a policy. For example, see this post from January 2020, this post from August 2020, and this post from earlier in August 2020.]

The Clear Hearing opinion states that statutory bad faith is an independent cause of action from a breach of contract action. If the statutory bad faith claim, however, “is premised solely on the denial of coverage, the claim must necessarily fail if a court finds that no coverage exists.” Judge Kenney adds, “[o]n the other hand, ‘if bad faith is asserted as to conduct beyond a denial of coverage, the bad faith claim is actionable as to that conduct regardless of whether the contract claim survives.’” Further, “[t]hat distinction has been accepted when, for example, an insured claims the insurer investigated his claim in bad faith in addition to a bad-faith denial of coverage.”

[Note: The legal support for these propositions goes back, in part, to the Third Circuit’s unpublished 2007 Gallatin Fuels decision, in which the court found bad faith was still possible even though there was not even a policy in effect at the time of the incident.  Here is a link to an article addressing the logic in Gallatin Fuels, and the effect the Pennsylvania 2007 Supreme Court decision in Toy v. Metropolitan Life should have had on Gallatin Fuels reasoning and authority, had the Gallatin Fuels Court looked to Toy, which was decided earlier in 2007.]

The bulk of Clear Hearing’s bad faith claims were based on coverage denials, and these claims were readily dismissed because no coverage was ever due. Judge Kenney then goes on to address the claim handling based bad faith arguments, accepting the possibility that statutory bad faith might still exist even when no coverage is due and no benefit has actually been denied.

Clear Hearing argued that there was bad faith based on the claim handling because Continental immediately denied the claim and did not conduct any investigation, while further failing to address or acknowledge the insureds’ interpretation of the policy language on direct physical loss.  Rather, Continental relied “on case law providing a restrictive interpretation of the term direct physical loss to deny its claim as part of a policy to limit the company’s losses during the pandemic.” (internal quotation marks omitted).

Judge Kenney rejected this argument:

To the extent that these allegations may be construed to extend beyond bad faith in the denial itself to bad faith in the investigatory process or process of denial, Clear Hearing has not met its burden. In the context of a claim for coverage based solely on government closure orders, and on Civil Authority orders where nearby property has not suffered direct physical loss of or damage to property and access to plaintiff’s property has not been prohibited, there is nothing to investigate: coverage does not exist on the face of that claim. Therefore, Clear Hearing has not shown bad faith in Continental’s lack of investigation or by denying Clear Hearing’s claim “in light of the current context of mass denials of COVID-19 related business interruption claims.” Discovery on this issue would not change that conclusion. Nor does Continental’s purported reliance on caselaw that this Court concludes correctly interprets “direct physical loss of or damage to” with respect to Clear Hearing’s claims indicate bad faith. Accordingly, Clear Hearing has not shown its entitlement to damages on its bad faith claim or an existence of a dispute of material fact as to Continental’s bad faith.

Case 2: Ultimate Hearing Solutions v. Twin City Fire Insurance

Plaintiffs were Pennsylvania entities with businesses located in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, which were subject to government closure orders due to Covid-19.  They likewise had all-risk policies, but with a different insurer than the Clear Hearing plaintiffs.  The Ultimate Hearing plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel as in the Clear Hearing case. These plaintiffs brought similar breach of contract and bad faith claims.

On the coverage, Judge Kenney applied the same reasoning found in Clear Hearing to conclude there was no covered direct physical loss or damage to property.

There were two differences, however, between the Ultimate Hearing and Clear Hearing all-risk policies. The Ultimate Healing policies included (1) limited coverage for fungi, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, and viruses; and (2) a virus exclusion.

In rejecting limited virus coverage, Judge Kenney stated, “the Limited Virus Coverage clearly states that the Policy only covers ‘Direct physical loss or direct physical damage to Covered Property caused by … virus.’ Plaintiffs did not allege that the coronavirus was present at any of their insured properties. They also have not shown, as discussed above, physical loss or damage to their properties.”

Judge Kenney further rejected the argument that the limited virus coverage was illusory, because “Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge that this Limited Virus Coverage provision also applies to fungi, wet rot, dry rot, and bacteria, not just viruses. While it may be difficult to think of a hypothetical situation where a virus causes physical damage to a property, it is not difficult to imagine that wet rot, dry rot or fungi can cause damage that would satisfy the ‘direct physical loss or direct physical damage’ requirement. Further, while it may be difficult to imagine, Defendants did in fact identify a case where insured property was damaged due to a virus caused by a Covered Cause of Loss.”

Judge Kenney also found the virus exclusion precluded coverage.

The bad faith arguments were similar to those made in Clear Hearing, but without reference to the insurer’s improperly relying on caselaw to deny coverage. Rather, the argument was phrased as a refusal to consider the insureds reasonable interpretation of the policy language concerning direct physical loss.

Judge Kenney rejected the bad faith claim handling argument, stating as in Clear Hearing:

In the context of a claim for coverage based solely on the Closure Orders where there are no claims that the insured property or nearby property has been physically damaged and access to Plaintiffs’ property has not been entirely prohibited, there is nothing to investigate: coverage does not exist on the face of that claim. Therefore, Ultimate Hearing Solutions has not shown bad faith in Twin City’s lack of investigation or by denying Ultimate Hearing Solutions’ claim “in light of the current context of mass denials of COVID-19 related business interruption claims.” Discovery on this issue would not change that conclusion. Accordingly, Ultimate Hearing Solutions has not shown its entitlement to damages on its bad faith claim or an existence of a dispute of material fact as to Twin City’s bad faith.

Date of Decision:  January 14, 2021

Clear Hearing Solutions, LLC v. Continental Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 20-3454, 2021 WL 131283 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021) (Kenney, J.)

Ultimate Hearing Solutions II, LLC v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 20-2401, 2021 WL 131556 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2021) (Kenney, J.)

FAILURE TO PROVIDE UNDERWRITING FILE CANNOT CONSTITUTE BAD FAITH ABSENT MORE SPECIFIC FACTS SUPPORTING IT WAS WITHHELD IN BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Judge Baylson had previously dismissed in this matter, summarized here, but allowed the insured leave to amend.  The insured filed an amended complaint, and the carrier moved again to dismiss the bad faith claim.

The carrier had taken the position that there was no stacking available to the insured. Before suit, the insured asked the carrier for its underwriting file to confirm there were no UIM stacking benefits.  The insurer refused to produce that file absent a court order.

The insured argued his bad faith claims were not premised on UIM coverage disputes, “but rather upon Defendant’s misrepresentation of that coverage and refusal to disclose the underwriting agreement.” The insured alleged the carrier refused to produce the underwriting file “because it contained information that would demonstrate Defendant falsely represented the coverage amount.” This alleged “concealment and misrepresentation by the Defendant constitute[d] an act of bad faith.” Judge Baylson disagreed and dismissed the bad faith claim with prejudice.

A bad faith claim requires plaintiff showing by clear and convincing evidence that a benefit denial was unreasonable, and that the insurer knew it was unreasonable or recklessly disregarded that fact. A bad faith claim cannot meet the plausible pleading standard, however, by simply pleading the insurer denied a coverage request. Rather, an insured-plaintiff must plead “factual specifics as to the ‘who, what, where, when, and how’ of the denial,” to make a cases for reckless indifference.

Judge Baylson found the insured plaintiff here alleged “no factual content indicating that Defendant (1) lacked a reasonable basis to deny coverage or (2) that Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of reasonable basis. Rather, Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to infer—without providing any supporting facts—that Defendant’s sole motivation in withholding the underwriting file was to deceive Plaintiff.”

In Judge Baylson’s first decision, he had “addressed reasons other than bad faith that might explain why Defendant refused to provide the underwriting document.” Specifically, he observes that “underwriting files often contain an insurer’s evaluation of the risks along with other confidential business information, to be in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The amended complaint fails to allege “any facts that plausibly suggest Defendant had no reasonable basis to deny Plaintiff stacked coverage, nor that Defendant knew or disregarded the lack of any such basis.”

Date of Decision: December 30, 2020

Dietz v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 20-1239, 2020 WL 7769933 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2020) (Baylson, J.)

SIMPLE VALUATION DISPUTE CANNOT CREATE BAD FAITH; NO ACTIONABLE BAD FAITH AGAINST CLAIM HANDLER; MIXED RESULT UNDER UTPCPL (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insured brought suit over a $500 valuation dispute.  The carrier valued the insured’s car at $2,500 ($3,000 less at $500 deductible), and repairs were estimated in excess of $3,000. The car being a total loss, the insurer offered $2,500, but the insured wanted $3,000.  This led to a 10 count complaint against the insurer and its claim handler. We only address the two bad faith counts against the insurer and/or the claim handler, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the insurer.

No statutory bad faith.

The court dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.  There were simply no allegations of fact that could support a plausible bad faith claim. The complaint itself showed the carrier appropriately investigated the claim, and gave a prompt damage assessment.  Plaintiff did not allege the repair cost estimate was incorrect, or the inspection faulty. There was no allegation that the insurer’s valuation was unreasonable. There was no claim denial, just a dispute over the sum due.

The court found this simply a “normal dispute” that did not amount to bad faith. “An insurer’s failure to honor its insured’s subjective value of his claim does not—without more—give rise to a bad faith claim.” The court, however, did allow leave to amend.

No common law bad faith against the insurer or the claim handler.

The insured brought common law bad faith claims against the insurer and claim handler. The court observed there is no tort common law bad faith cause of action; rather, in Pennsylvania common law bad faith is subsumed in the breach of contract claim. Thus, the common law claim against the insurer was dismissed with prejudice.

As to claim handler, Pennsylvania law (1) does not support a statutory bad faith claim against claim handlers; nor (2) does it recognize a bad faith claim in contract against adjusters (who are clearly not party to any contract). These claims were dismissed with prejudice.

A mixed result under the UTPCPL.

The court also dismissed one UTPCPL claim on the basis that it alleged poor claim handling, not deceptive inducement to enter the insurance contract.  However, the insured also alleged the carrier’s representative originally made false representations causing him to purchase the insurance in the first place.  This was sufficient to state a UTPCPL claim under its catch-all provision.

Date of Decision: December 14, 2020

Ke v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-1591, 2020 WL 7353892 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2020) (Pratter, J.)

NO BAD FAITH BASED ON: (1) COMPARISON OF OFFER AND RESERVES; (2) UIPA VIOLATIONS; (3) LOWER SETTLEMENT OFFER THAN INSURED DEMANDED; (4) FAILURE TO RAISE SETTLEMENT OFFER; (5) INSURED’S FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE; (6) TIMING OF PARTIAL PAYMENT; OR (7) CLAIM MANUAL (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Western District Magistrate Judge Dodge’s May 2020 opinion in this case, the court allowed this UIM bad faith claim to survive a motion to dismiss. That decision is summarized here.  Her present opinion addresses the insurer’s summary judgment motion on bad faith.

The stipulated facts show, among other things, the insured’s injuries, that the tortfeasor’s carrier paid $50,000, that the insured demanded full UIM policy limits of $500,000, that the insurer set a $25,000 reserve and offered $10,000 to settle the claim fully, and that there was a dispute among medical experts about the scope of future treatment.  The record showed that the insurer’s claim adjustor reviewed new information from the insured on a number of occasions and found no basis to revise his damage analysis behind the $25,000 reserve figure.

After a considerable time period, the insured’s counsel did demand partial payment of the $10,000, saying this was undisputed, but never provided a full counter demand to the $10,000 offer because the course of medical treatment remained open.  The insurer eventually agreed to pay the $10,000, but the record appears ambiguous as to how each side interpreted the conditions of that payment.

Although the earlier motion to dismiss resulted in dismissal of claims asserting a private right of action under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), the insured asserted there were technical violations of the UIPA that could be considered in ruling on a statutory bad faith claim.

The court identified the following bad faith claims:

  1. The insurer allegedly “failed to re-evaluate the UIM claim when presented with new information and then make a higher offer despite raising the amount of its reserves.”

  2. The insurer “failed to make a timely partial payment of $10,000 even though that amount was undisputed.

  3. The insurer “violated the UIPA and its own claims-handling policies in at least two respects—by failing to notify [the insured] of its position that his alleged contributory negligence reduced the value of his claim, and failing to respond to an offer within ten days.”

Poor Judgment is Not Bad Faith

Magistrate Judge Dodge stated that “neither an insured’s disagreement with the amount offered on a UIM claim nor a citation to negligent mistakes made by the insurer in handling the claim is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith.”

She looked to Judge Hornak’s recent Stewart decision, summarized here, granting the insurer summary judgment “where plaintiff pedestrian suffered injuries that he valued at $2 million but the insurer investigated, set the value of the claim at $125,000, set reserves at $55,000 and offered $25,000” and Judge McVerry’s 2013 Schifino decision, summarized here, where a “$10,000 initial offer on UIM claim valued at $60,000 did not constitute bad faith and although [the insurer’s] conduct was ‘not free from criticism in its initial handling of the claim … this conduct is more indicative of poor judgment than bad faith.’”

Setting Aside Reserves Cannot be used as a Cudgel

Magistrate Judge Dodge also addressed the law concerning reserves, stating that “setting aside reserves does not amount to an admission of liability.” “Reserves are merely amounts set aside by insurers to cover potential future liabilities,” and “the setting of reserves is an estimate of an insurer’s exposure under a claim …[but] the court is reluctant to fashion a rule requiring an insurer to make an offer reflecting the reserve as soon as it is set.” Thus, “bad faith does not hinge on whether an offer is less than the reserves….”

The Alleged Failure to Increase an Offer is Not Bad Faith

The court rejected the claim that the insurer had raised reserves while failing to reevaluate the claim. In fact, the claim handler had not raised reserves even after receiving new information from the insured, but kept the reserves at the same figure after evaluating that new information.

The adjustor’s claims notes omitted $45,000 in medical expenses at two different dates, which were in his original evaluation. The insured claimed this demonstrated bad faith in evaluating the claims. The adjustor testified “that this was simply a mistake ‘because if you look at the doctor’s notes there’s no difference in what I already knew.’ Thus, this evidence suggests that [the] adjustor made an error when he recorded or updated information in his notes. This would amount to negligence, not bad faith. Importantly, it is undisputed that [the adjustor] concluded in each evaluation that a reserve setting of $25,000 was appropriate and his assessment of the potential value of the UIM claim did not change.”

Further, simply because the $10,000 offer was lower than the reserves did not prove bad faith, nor was it even “evidence of bad faith.” There also was no evidence the adjustor concluded the UIM claim’s value “was far in excess of the amount he set as a reserve or that his offer was unreasonable.”

The court distinguished the well-known Boneberger case on grounds that case was about intentionally devious claim handling practices used to create artificially low values. It was not about simply making offers that were much lower than the claimed value.

Magistrate Judge Dodge then discussed case law recognizing the principle that low but reasonable estimates cannot support bad faith claims. She looked to the Third Circuit’s 2019 Rau decision, summarized here. In addition, she looked to Judge Conti’s Katta opinion, summarized here, in observing factors weighing against bad faith, such as: the uncertainty of the claim’s value; “the offer was not unreasonably low because an initial offer below the alleged amount of loss does not constitute evidence of bad faith”; the insurer’s willingness to increase its offer and the insured’s refusal to negotiate down from a policy limit demand; and the insured’s failure to provide additional information to the insurer as to why its offer should be increased.

The court quoted Judge Conti at length: “It is troubling that plaintiff seeks to proceed with his bad faith claim despite having made no effort to engage in negotiations with defendant. Plaintiff was under no duty to negotiate, but courts have recognized that stonewalling negotiations is a relevant consideration in determining whether an insurer acted in bad faith. …. If plaintiff’s bad faith claim were to proceed, future plaintiffs could survive summary judgment on bad faith claims by simply filing suit after receiving an offer that the plaintiff believes is too low. The mere fact that defendant’s initial offer was lower than plaintiff’s unsubstantiated claim of lost wages, in absence of any other substantive evidence of bad faith, including unreasonable delay, intentional deception, or the like, is not sufficient to constitute clear and convincing evidence.”

In the present case, the insured never made a counter demand or attempted to negotiate after the $10,000 initial offer, and never came off of a policy limit demand.  Moreover, as set out above, the adjustor’s claim handling and claim evaluation were not unreasonable.

Partial Payment Issue not a Basis for Bad Faith

Magistrate Judge Dodge cited Third Circuit precedent that a failure to make partial payment could only reach the level of bad faith “where the evidence demonstrated that two conditions had been met. The first is that the insurance company conducted, or the insured requested but was denied, a separate assessment of some part of her claim (i.e., that there was an undisputed amount). The second is, at least until such a duty is clearly established in law (so that the duty is a known duty), that the insured made a request for partial payment.” She observed Pennsylvania’s Superior Court has followed this standard.

In the present case, there was no separate assessment of a partial claim, or any partial valuation carried out, resulting in an agreed upon undisputed partial sum due.  There was only an offer that the insured originally declined, but later demanded be paid without the insured admitting he either accepted or rejected that offer. Rather, the insured’s counsel asked the carrier to “issue a draft in the amount of the $10,000 as a partial payment of the UIM benefits until a counter can be made and the matter can be resolved in full.” Further, even when the $10,000 was paid, the parties disagreed over the meaning of the payment.

Magistrate Judge Dodge concluded the “agreement to pay to Plaintiffs the amount of its previous offer to settle the UIM claim does not represent evidence of bad faith.” While it might be generally correct to characterized the $10,000 as undisputed “there were no communications about this amount representing a separate assessment of some component of [the] claim.” Moreover, any delay in paying the $10,000 fell on the insured.

“Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs continue to assert that the failure [] to make a more timely partial payment represents bad faith, any such claim fails as a matter of law. Plaintiffs cannot assert that [the insurer] acted in bad faith by offering to make a partial payment—which it was not required to do—and not offering it again sooner after Plaintiffs rejected it.”

UIPA Violations Cannot Form the Basis of a Bad Faith Claim

The parties agreed there is no private right of action under the UIPA. The insured, however, wanted to use UIPA violations as evidence of statutory bad faith. The court rejected that effort.

Magistrate Judge Dodge stated 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.” Contrary to the insured’s arguments that some federal cases hold otherwise, she states that “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.

[Our May 2, 2019 post summarizes different approaches courts take in considering UIPA and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations.]

No Bad Faith Based on Insurer’s Own Manuals

Magistrate Judge Dodge found this was not a case where the insurer’s manuals and guidelines recommended aggressive claims handling and litigation tactics to discourage an insured’s legitimate claims.  “In this case, there is no evidence in the record that [the insurer’s] manual promotes improper tactics or conduct; quite the contrary.”

The court also rejected the argument that the insurer acted in bad faith by violating its own claim handling policies. “The issue here is not whether [the insurer’s] claims handling policy is admissible, but whether it provides any support for Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim. It does not.”

In sum, partial summary judgment was granted on the bad faith claim.

Date of Decision:  December 10, 2020

Kleinz v. Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:19-CV-01426, 2020 WL 7263548 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2020) (Dodge, M.J.)

INSURER CAN GO BEYOND FOUR CORNERS OF COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE IF A PERSON IS AN INSURED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHEN DEFENDING BAD FAITH CASE (Third Circuit, Pennsylvania Law)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Third Circuit addressed the central issue of whether the defendant was an insured, and how to analyze that factual issue in ruling on coverage and bad faith claims.

The named insured went with his girlfriend to a picnic, where they met up with the mother of the named insured’s child.  The girlfriend was also a named insured, but the mother was a stranger to the insurance contract. The mother decided to move the named insureds’ car, and struck plaintiff while driving the car. The injured plaintiff sued the two named insureds and the mother.

The carrier covered the named insureds, but took the position that the mother was not a permissive user and therefore was not an insured under the policy. The mother stipulated to a judgment and assigned her bad faith and breach of contract claims to the injured plaintiff, who sued the carrier.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

The Four Corners Rule does not Apply to Determining if a Party is an Insured for Duty to Defend Purposes

The Third Circuit first addressed the issue of whether the four corners rule encompasses determinations of whether a party is an insured in the first instance.

The issue has never been addressed by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court.

The insurer argued it could not be bad faith to take the position the mother was not an insured, even if the complaint indicated otherwise, because the law on the issue is unsettled.  The carrier asserted it could use extrinsic evidence to show the mother was not an insured, and denied coverage on that basis. The Third Circuit agreed that “because Pennsylvania courts have not ruled on this issue, [the insurer] did not act in bad faith after it ‘reasonably determined that [mother] was not an insured under the Policy.’”

On the merits of coverage itself, the court concluded “that, when the insurer determines a claim is outside the scope of the insurance policy before a suit is filed, it has no duty to defend because it has effectively ‘confine[d] the claim to a recovery that the policy [does] not cover.’” Here, the insurer investigated the claim, and determined the mother was not an insured because she was not a permissive user.  “After that determination, the four corners rule no longer applied. [The insurer] did not have a duty to defend, and its actions do not show bad faith.”

Bad Faith Investigation

The court then went on to examine whether a bad faith claim could be stated solely on the basis that the insurer’s investigation was conducted in bad faith.  As repeated on this blog ad naseum, there is a genuine issue as to whether there is an independent bad faith claim for poor investigation practices when no coverage is otherwise due. For example see this post from January 2020, this post from August 2020, and this post from earlier in August 2020. A close examination in this case, however, shows the lack of investigation bad faith claim is actually intertwined with the coverage issue. Thus, this is not a case where a party is trying to prove bad faith even though no coverage is due.

Treating investigation based bad faith as a separate cause of action, rather than merely evidence of bad faith, the court observed “[g]ood faith in this context requires that an insurance determination be ‘made diligently and accurately, pursuant to a good faith investigation into the facts’ that is ‘sufficiently thorough to provide [the insurer] with a reasonable foundation for its actions.’” The mother argued the record showed she had “implied permission” to use the car, and the carrier acted in bad faith by unreasonably failing to recognize she had implied permission. The court disagreed, finding no adequate evidence to defeat summary judgment on the issue.

No Common Law Bad Faith Claim

“Finally, although the standard for common law bad faith diverges from statutory bad faith … the common law action for bad faith is a contract claim. Thus, because [the mother] was not an insured, she was not party to the contract, and she had no common law contract claim to assign….”

Date of Decision: December 8, 2020

Myers v. Geico Cas. Co., U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 19-1108, 2020 WL 7230600 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2020) (Fisher, Restrepo, Roth, JJ.)

NO BAD FAITH FOR FAILURE TO LEARN ABOUT OTHER INSURANCE COVERAGE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE INSURED, OR IN ACTIVE CLAIM HANDLING THAT ONLY RESULTED IN A VALUATION DISPUTE (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The injured plaintiff had UIM insurance stacked for four vehicles. With stacking, this UIM coverage amounted to $60,000. The insured agreed to settle his claim for $50,000.

After that settlement, the plaintiff brought to the carrier’s attention that his stepson also had an auto policy with the same carrier. Plaintiff took the position that he was an insured under the stepson’s policy as they resided in the same household. If true, this would considerably increase potential UIM coverage from $60,000 to $160,000.

The stepson’s policy, however, listed a different home address. The stepfather told this carrier this was not accurate and an investigation into the stepson’s address ensued.  The carrier ultimately agreed to the additional $100,000 in available UIM coverage, but did not find a factual basis to increase the $50,000 paid to settle the case.

The Insurer’s Claim Handling Concerning Valuation

The court accepted the carrier’s factual recitations from the record. The insured twice agreed with the carrier on the claim’s value, only later to change course and increase his demand.  Instead of arguing over these reversals, the carrier “re-opened, re-evaluated and continued to negotiate with Plaintiff in a prompt and reasonable manner.” Moreover, the carrier did so “despite [the plaintiff’s] repeated refusal for over a year to participate in an SUO [statement under oath], and resistance to providing authorizations for the release of medical records, both of which are investigative tools to which [the insurer] is contractually entitled.”

The court also agreed the insured only gave the carrier “unreasonably small windows of time to respond to his demands, and refused to grant any extensions. … Nevertheless, [the insurer] continued to work with Plaintiff and to explain to him what [the insurer] needed, why [the insurer] needed it, and the basis for [its] determinations regarding his claim.”

The insurer obtained an independent medical examination, years after the injury, from which it concluded there was no basis to increase the settlement sum.  This evaluation was done at a time when the insured repeatedly said he was going in for additional surgery, and this was a basis to increase the claim’s value. As of the time the record was created in the case, however, this surgery had not taken place.

Judge Cercone stated the insurer “reasonably valued Plaintiffs UIM claim … and reasonably took the position that, if Plaintiff did in fact undergo surgery, the claim could be again be re-evaluated at that time.”

Alleged Failure to Determine the Stepson’s Address

The bad faith claim focused on the insurer’s alleged failure to disclose the insured was also covered under the stepson’s policy, as well as his own policy. This in turn boiled down to where the stepson actually resided at the time of the accident at issue, and what information the insurer had about the stepson’s residence in underwriting the stepson’s auto policy.

The record shows the stepson used his biological’s father’s home address in applying for insurance, not his stepfather’s address. Further, there was nothing on the face of the stepson’s underwriting file to indicate the stepson resided with plaintiff and not his biological father. After considerable investigation, the insurer did agree plaintiff was an insured under the stepson’s policy, thus accepting that the stepson in fact resided with plaintiff and not his biological father.  As stated above, however, the insurer refused to increase its settlement sum pending any actual additional surgery and an evaluation thereof.

Bad Faith Analysis

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The bad faith claim was based on the notion that it was the carrier, not the stepfather, that had a duty to disclose the additional $100,000 in coverage under the stepson’s policy. Thus, the plaintiff alleged the carrier misled the stepfather-insured into thinking there was only $60,000 in coverage, and this created a basis for a statutory bad faith recovery.

The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment on this bad faith claim.

Judge Cercone found “[t]he matter presented to defendant and this court falls far short on the showing needed to permit the finder of fact to arrive at a finding of bad faith.” The stepfather did nothing more than insinuate the carrier: (1) should have been more astute in determining the stepson’s actual address, (2) questioned the stepson on his address, (3) discovered inconsistencies in his address, which (4) “would have and should have detected that [stepson] lived with plaintiffs,” and then (5) would have necessarily resulted in the carrier realizing that the stepson’s policy should have been added to the stepfather’s applicable policy limits.

The court rejected this speculative narrative as falling far short of the kind of reckless or intentional misconduct needed to prove bad faith. The putative failure to uncover the extra $100,000 in coverage was at most negligent, and “an insurer’s mere negligence or bad judgment is not bad faith.”

Moreover, the court clearly did not believe there was even negligence in this case. Judge Cercone described plaintiff’s effort to convert the stepson’s underwriting history “into an unfounded and unreasonable basis for failing to detect [stepson’s] actual residence [as] nothing more than an attempt to insinuate an evidentiary basis for a finding of bad faith.” The plaintiff failed to identify any procedure the carrier failed to follow in concluding the stepson’s address to be with his biological father, which was the address submitted by the stepson and his biological father when originally obtaining the policy, and the address used on the policy.

The court described the case as actually boiling down to a valuation dispute.

As described above, the insurer’s claims handling was reasonable. It considered multiple demands to reevaluate the claim, even after settlement. It also agreed to the additional $100,000 in coverage limits “without meaningful delay once [stepson’s] actual address … was made known … and it verified…”

Judge Cercone states, “[a]gainst this backdrop it is rank speculation to infer that the [insurer’s] principals involved here engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to promote [the insurer’s] financial interest over its fiduciary obligations to plaintiffs, or that they recklessly pursued a course of conduct that had the ability to do so. As noted above, plaintiffs’ attempts to establish the lack of good faith fall woefully short of the mark and are insufficient.” Nothing was identified in the insurer’s claim handling that “even remotely raises a specter of self-dealing.”

Judge Cercone found “no evidence whatsoever that defendant did not investigate, valuate and negotiate with plaintiffs in good faith or stopped doing so during the adjustment process.”

In summing up, Judge Cercone states:

In short, plaintiffs have failed to advance sufficient evidence to permit a finding in their favor on a bad faith insurance practices claim. Plaintiffs’ evidence pertaining to defendant’s failure to uncover [stepson’s] policy during a search for household policy holders in conjunction with [plaintiff’s] UIM claim cannot bear the weight plaintiffs seek to have it shoulder. [The insurer] straightforwardly requested plaintiffs to identify the automobiles owed by any family member residing in their household. They did not identify or even allude to [stepson] and his motor vehicle when so requested. The evidence reflecting the address used in issuing [stepson’s] policy has every appearance of being consistent with honoring the representations and billing requests of its insureds and does not in any event supply clear and convincing evidence that defendant engaged in self-dealing or other similar measures in order to thwart its good faith obligations in adjusting and negotiating [plaintiff’s] UIM claim.”

Date of Decision: November 30, 2020

Bogats v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:18CV708, 2020 WL 7027480 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2020) (Cercone, J.)

(1) NO WANTON CONDUCT UNDER MVFRL INVOKING TREBLE DAMAGES AND SUPER INTEREST; (2) NO STATUTORY BAD FAITH WHERE (i) MVFRL PREEMPTS BAD FAITH STATUTE; (ii) THERE IS ONLY A VALUATION DISPUTE; (iii) INVESTIGATION REASONABLE; (4) BIAS CLAIMS ARE MERELY SUBJECTIVE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and made both PIP claims and underinsured motorist (UIM) claims. She found the carrier’s settlement offers and negotiations wholly inadequate, and brought statutory bad faith claims, and claims for damages under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) seeking treble damages and super interest for the insurer’s allegedly “wanton” conduct concerning her medical benefit claims.

MVFRL Claims

The court found the insured could proceed on her PIP claim under a breach of contract theory. However, the MVFRL claim for treble damages and 12% interest, under 75 Pa. C.S. § 1797(b)(4), was dismissed without prejudice. Judge Pappert held plaintiff had not pleaded “wanton” conduct, a predicate for gaining the extraordinary remedies under this statute.

The insurer also asserted the MVFRL count actually alleged a breach of the duty of good fair dealing, and moreover constituted an improper effort to get relief under the Bad Faith Statute. It asked the court to strike certain averments related to this putative backdoor bad faith claim.

The court rejected this argument: “Although Count II appears to assert a claim under the MVFRL … it also appears to assert a claim for … alleged breach of the implied contractual duty to act in good faith related to her PIP coverage. …  Because [the insured] may pursue a claim for breach of her policy’s PIP coverage obligations and because motions to strike are ‘not favored and usually will be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties,’ the Court will not strike her allegations regarding the duty of good faith and fair dealing in Count II.”

MVFRL Claims and the Bad Faith Statute

The court then addressed the statutory bad faith claim.

The court first observed that unless the insurer’s “conduct falls outside of the scope of § 1797 of the MVFRL, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1797, and involves a bad faith abuse of the process challenging more than just the insurer’s denial of first party benefits, the MVFRL preempts any statutory bad faith claim concerning … PIP benefits.” The court made clear, “To the extent that the gravamen of [the] bad faith claim is the denial of first party medical benefits and nothing more, [the insurer’s] alleged conduct is within the scope of § 1797 of the MVFRL and therefore [she] is precluded from bringing such a claim.”

However, “[s]ection 8371 bad faith claims remain cognizable when the basis of a benefits denial does not relate to the reasonableness and necessity of treatment, or when an insurer’s conduct is obviously not amenable to resolution by the procedures set forth in Section 1797(b).”

Dispute Over Valuation not Bad Faith

The insured alleged the insurer delayed her claim and denied its value. The court found these allegations did not equate to allegations that the insurer actually deny the UIM or PIP. Rather, there was a dispute over valuation.

Analyzing the matter as a valuation dispute, Judge Pappert found the insured did not allege “facts sufficient to show [the insurer’s] valuation is unreasonable.” The insured’s subjective beliefs as to her claim’s value “is not indicative of bad faith because … subjective belief as to the value of the claim may reasonably, and permissibly, differ.”

Rather, “[t]o state a bad faith claim, [an insured] must do more than call [the insurer’s] offers low-ball.” These kind of conclusory and subjective allegations “suggest nothing more than a normal dispute between an insured and insurer.”

Low but Reasonable Offers Not Bad Faith

Bad faith does not exist “merely because an insurer makes a low but reasonable estimate of an insured’s damages.” Nor does a refusal “to immediately accede to a demand for the policy limit … without more, amount to bad faith.”

Insurer had Reasonable Basis to Deny Claim/No Adequate Claim of Bias

Next, Judge Pappert rejected the argument that the insured adequately pleaded the insurer lacked a reasonable basis to deny the claim’s value.  The insurer requested medical records and had an IME performed. It assessed the insured’s injuries based on that information.

The court did not give weight to conclusory allegations the doctor performing the IME was “a biased IME doctor” and “well-known as [someone] who provides so-called Independent Medical Examinations exclusively for and apparently to the liking of insurance companies….”  Further, that the plaintiff’s own doctor said she needed surgery did not, by itself, support a bad faith claim. The insurer was not unreasonable in relying  on the IME doctor’s assessment that the symptoms requiring surgery were unrelated to the accident at issue.

“In the absence of any supporting facts from which it might be inferred that [the] investigation was biased or unreasonable, this type of disagreement in an insurance case is not unusual, and cannot, without more, amount to bad faith.”

The court, however, permitted plaintiff to amend the statutory bad faith claim “to the extent it is not preempted by the MVFRL and to the extent she is able to allege facts stating a plausible claim for relief.”

Date of Decision: October 2, 2020

Canfield v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-2794, 2020 WL 5878261 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2020) (Pappert, J.)