I. EXPERT CAN OPINE ON CLAIM HANDLING PRACTICES, BUT NOT REASONABLENESS OR GOOD FAITH; II. NO BAD FAITH WHERE (1) VALUATION REASONABLE; (2) INVESTIGATION OF INCIDENT IRRELEVANT; (3) INSURER’S CONDUCT WAS TIMELY; (4) INSURER COMMUNICATED WITH INSURED; AND (5) NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW NEGOTIATIONS WERE IN BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involved a dispute over whether the insurer acted in bad faith by paying for a damaged car’s value, instead of paying to repair…

NO BAD FAITH PLEADED: (1) 38 BAD FAITH ALLEGATIONS ALL CONCLUSORY; (2) ONLY A VALUATION DISPUTE; (3) INSURER DID NOT “CONSTRUCTIVELY IGNORE” RECORDS SUPPORTING CLAIM; (4) NO DILATORY CONDUCT SPECIFICALLY PLEADED; (5) “LOW BALL” OFFER ALLEGATION ISN’T SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO STATE A BAD FAITH CLAIM (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again.”  That didn’t work in this case, where a bad faith claim was dismissed with prejudice…

COURT ADDRESSES (1) COMMON LAW VS. STATUTORY BAD FAITH STANDARDS; (2) LACK OF CLARITY IN THE LAW AND BAD FAITH; (3) DELAYS IN CLAIM HANDLING AND SETTLEMENT OFFERS; (4) APPLYING THE UNFAIR INSURANCE PRACTICES ACT IN BAD FAITH CASES; (5) AGGRESSIVE DISCOVERY/CLAIM HANDLING DURING LITIGATION; and (6) LOW RANGE SETTLEMENT OFFERS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Eastern District Judge Tucker explains the similarities and differences between common law and statutory bad faith, in granting the insurer summary judgment on the statutory…