Archive for the 'PA – Common Law Bad Faith (contractual or fiduciary basis)' Category
The insureds allege they wanted a joint annuity policy, rather than an individual annuity policy. The carrier was fully aware of the insureds’ intent and request, but only issued them an individual annuity policy. They first received the annuity policy in 2008, but allege they only learned for the first time in 2020 that it was an individual annuity policy.
The carrier refused to treat the policy as a joint annuity, and the insured brought claims for breach of contract and bad faith, among others. The insurer successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds.
The court found the breach of contract claim time-barred, as well beyond the four-year statute of limitations. The claim could not be salvaged by the discovery rule as the insureds did not act with reasonable diligence in discovering and pursuing their claims. The information alerting them to the alleged breach had been in front of them for 12 years, but they did not act.
Similarly, the bad faith claims were time-barred. The statutory bad faith claim has a two-year limitations period, which had long run. Further, any contract based bad faith claim was time-barred for the same reasons as the breach of contract claim. The court only assumed for the sake of argument that the discovery rule could even apply to bad faith claims, which again failed for lack of reasonable diligence.
The court also observed that the insureds failed to allege bad faith in accord with federal pleading standards, averring nothing more than a breach of contract accompanied by conclusory allegations of bad faith.
Date of Decision: January 7, 2021
Smith v. Pruco Life Insurance Company, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-04098, 2021 WL 63266 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2021) (McHugh, J.)
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.)
Published on
December 17, 2020 in
PA - Claims Handling (reasonable), PA - Common Law Bad Faith (contractual or fiduciary basis), PA - Coverage Issues, PA - Discovery and Evidence, PA - Insurer wrong, but reasonable, PA - Law unsettled, PA - No coverage due, bad faith still possible, PA - No coverage duty, no bad faith and PA - Standing, Assignment or Outside Scope.
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.)
This case involves attorney malpractice insurance, and when a carrier is estopped from denying coverage for failing to issue a timely reservation of rights letter.
The underlying plaintiff brought two actions against the attorney arising out of the same underlying medical malpractice action: (1) a 2017 legal malpractice action and (2) a 2019 disgorgement action seeking return of a referral fee paid to the insured attorney.
As to the 2019 claim, the underlying plaintiff had demanded return of the referral fee even prior to the disgorgement action. The record indicates that at some point prior to the disgorgement action being filed, the carrier issued a reservation of rights letter, stating the attorney would not be covered for any disgorgement. Another reservation of rights letter was issued after the 2019 suit was filed. The carrier defended the disgorgement action, but refused to indemnify after judgment was entered against the attorney, who had to disgorge his referral fee and pay treble damages.
The carrier brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it had no duty to indemnify either the 2017 or 2019 actions. The insured counterclaimed for coverage, based on estoppel, and bad faith. The underlying plaintiff, a party to the case, also asserted estoppel.
The present posture involved cross-motions for summary judgment.
Carrier estopped from denying coverage for failing to issue timely reservation of rights letter
As to the 2017 case, the malpractice carrier defended the first action without timely issuing any reservation of rights letter. Thus, the court held the insurer was estopped from later denying coverage in the 2017 malpractice action.
In reaching this conclusion, Judge Kearney provides a detailed analysis of when an insurer may be estopped from denying coverage for failing to issue a reservation of rights letter, which is worth reading in detail for any attorney doing coverage work. Without reciting every detail, Judge Kearney outlines the basic issues as follows:
-
To estop an insurer from denying defense or coverage, the insured must show the insurer induced a belief in facts on which the insured relied to his detriment.
-
In determining detrimental reliance, courts will assess whether the insured suffered actual prejudice.
-
“Actual prejudice occurs when an insurer assumes the insured’s defense without timely issuing a reservation of rights letter asserting all possible bases for a potential denial of coverage.”
-
“When an insurer receives notice of a claim, it has a duty ‘immediately to investigate all the facts in connection with the supposed loss as well as any possible defense on the policy.’”
-
“[The insurer] cannot play fast and loose, taking a chance in the hope of winning, and, if the results are adverse, taking advantage of a defect in the policy.”
-
“The insured loses substantial rights when he surrenders, as he must, to the insurance carrier the conduct of the case.”
No estoppel in second action and no bad faith
Earlier in the case, the court dismissed the insured’s bad faith counterclaims on the 2017 action, but had allowed the bad faith counterclaims on the 2019 action to proceed.
As to the 2019 action, the insurer promptly issued a reservation of rights and denial of coverage when it learned of the potential disgorgement claim. Moreover, it had even informed the insured prior to the second action’s actual filing that there was no coverage for disgorgement claims.
The court found the carrier was not estopped from asserting it owed no duties in the second action. Judge Kearney especially focused on the absence of prejudice to the insured. Clearly, the court further agreed that the carrier had no indemnification duty toward the insured in the 2019 case, absent an effective estoppel argument.
As to bad faith, once the court found the insurer had reserved its rights and properly denied coverage in the second action, it rejected the bad faith claim.
Judge Kearney observed there is no common law bad faith claim in Pennsylvania, only statutory bad faith and the contractual breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. In this case, the insured did not raise statutory bad faith, so the court solely looked at the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing claim.
“An insurer violates its implied contractual duty to act in good faith when it gives a ‘frivolous’ or ‘unfounded’ excuse not to pay insurance proceeds. As we find [the insurer] has no duty to defend or indemnify [the insured attorney], we cannot find its decision not to do so ‘unfounded’ or ‘frivolous.’”
Finally, the court found the underlying plaintiff had no standing to bring an estoppel counterclaim, even if she did have standing to argue for coverage.
Thus, the insured won summary judgment on coverage in the 2017 claim, but the insurer was successful on the 2019 claim.
Date of Decision: October 8, 2020
Westport Insurance Corporation v. McClellan, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 20-1372, 2020 WL 5961047 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 8, 2020) (Kearney, J.)
Published on
October 19, 2020 in
PA - Claims Handling (reasonable), PA - Common Law Bad Faith (contractual or fiduciary basis), PA - Delay (Investigation/Claims handling), PA - Estimates, Valuation or Appraisal, PA - Experts, PA - Federal Pleading Inadequate, PA - MVFRL, PA - Negligence not bad faith, PA - Settlement related issues and PA - UIM/UM Cases.
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.)
The essence of the insured’s case is the insurer settled claims against the insured without the insured’s knowledge or permission, and without adequate investigation. The insurer paid $995,000 out of a $1 Million policy to the person injured in the insured’s ambulance. The insured asserts the carrier overpaid to settle, resulting in $200,000 in damages from increased premiums.
The complaint did not include any reference to statutory bad faith, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371. Thus, the court found that the sole “bad faith” claim at issue was a breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The insurer moved to dismiss based on section 8371’s two-year statute of limitations. Since this is a contract based bad faith claim, however, the statute of limitations is four years, and that argument was rejected.
As to the merits, the carrier asserts the policy language expressly provides it can settle any claim or suit as it considers appropriate. Thus, it has complete authority to settle within policy limits at any amount. The insured argues this is “absurd,” but offers no authority to support its position.
The court ruled for the insurer, observing: “Pennsylvania law disfavors bad faith claims where a policy grants the insurer discretion to settle and where such settlement is within policy limits. … However, ‘in limited circumstances,’ ‘a claim for bad faith may … be asserted against the insurance company notwithstanding a ‘deems expedient’ provision … if such settlement was contrary to the intent and expectation of the parties.’” Here, the court found the “settle when appropriate” language to be the equivalent of a deems expedient provision.
The court cited two precedents where a deems expedient provision undermined the possibility of a bad faith claim. In the first, there was no evidence the parties did not freely negotiate policy terms. As to the second, the Third Circuit interpreted “’deems expedient’ clauses broadly—so broadly as to allow insurers to settle claims subject to such clauses ‘for nuisance value of the claim’ or even where a ‘suit … presents no valid claim against the defendants.’”
In the present case, the insured does not contend the deems expedient clause was not freely negotiated. Moreover, even if the insurer could have done more to investigate the underlying claim, “the ‘deems expedient’ clause in its policy afforded [the insurer] the option of settling … simply because it preferred settlement over further investigation of his claim.”
Thus, the bad faith claim was dismissed with prejudice.
Date of Decision: July 22, 2020
Healthfleet Ambulance, Inc. v. Markel Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-2250, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129185 (E.D. Pa. July 22, 2020) (Beetlestone, J.)
Plaintiff asserted that the insurer breached a fiduciary duty. The insurer moved to dismiss, alleging plaintiff was not a named insured. Rather the policy was issued to his mother. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because he was a co-owner of the underlying asset he should be treated as an insured, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice.
The court observed that under Pennsylvania law:
-
“[A]n insurer does not have a fiduciary duty to an insured, except in limited circumstances such as where the insurer asserts a right to defend claims against the insured.”
-
“[T]he existence of a fiduciary duty . . . is predicated upon an existing contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured.”
-
“To determine who is an insured under a given policy, the Court ‘must look to the terms of the [p]olicy.’”
Applying these principles, the plaintiff could not claim a breach of fiduciary duty when he was not a named insured. “Notwithstanding his alleged co-ownership of the underlying asset, plaintiff cannot claim that the defendants owed him a fiduciary duty or that he was entitled to recover under the terms of the policy.”
Date of Decision: July 13, 2020
Deckard v. Steven Emory, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5182, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2001, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122720 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2020) (DuBois, J.)
As in the two Eastern District cases summarized earlier this week, Middle District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson dismissed a bad faith claim with leave to amend. Judge Wilson also struck fiduciary duty allegations from the complaint in this uninsured motorist case.
The complaint fails to allege bad faith
The insured alleged the insurer was “supplied with documentation sufficient to fully and fairly evaluate the uninsured motorist claim, but [the insurer] failed to do so.” Judge Wilson found the insured failed to plead specific facts as to what might qualify as bad faith conduct. Plaintiff simply alleges the bad faith elements, and “does not lay out ‘any facts that describe who, what, where, when, and how the alleged bad faith conduct occurred.’” Judge Wilson cited Western District Judge Bissoon’s Mondron opinion to support her conclusion, though she did allow plaintiff leave to amend.
No fiduciary duty in UM/UIM context
The insurer also successfully moved to strike allegations that it owed a fiduciary duty.
The court observed that the insured’s breach of contract claim was based on the UM policy benefits. In Pennsylvania, there is no fiduciary duty arising out of insurance contracts that goes beyond the duty of good faith and fair dealing “until an insurer asserts a stated right under the policy to handle all claims asserted against the insured. … These are not the circumstances in an uninsured motorist claim.”
Rather, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court makes clear in the UM/UIM context “an insurance company’s duty to its insured is one of good faith and fair dealing. It goes without saying that this duty does not allow an insurer to protect its own interests at the expense of its insured’s interests. Nor does it require an insurer to sacrifice its own interests by blindly paying each and every claim submitted by an insured in order to avoid a bad faith lawsuit.”
Thus, plaintiff’s allegations of a fiduciary duty were “not pertinent to her breach of contract claim, which only requires an insurer to act in good faith and fair dealing towards the insured.” As allowing the fiduciary duty allegations would only confuse the actual issues in the case, the motion to strike those allegations was granted.
Date of Decision: June 17, 2020
Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Civil No. 1:20-CV-00367, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105766 (M.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) (Wilson, J.)
A policy lapsed for failure to make payments. Plaintiff brought an action for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleging that the insurer by failed to notify him a premium was due. The trial court granted the insurer summary judgment and the Third Circuit affirmed.
This was a contract-based claim, not a statutory bad faith claim. As the Third Circuit observed, “Pennsylvania law implies a duty of good faith and fair dealing into every contract.” Contractual good faith means “[h]onesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.” Examples of contractual bad faith include, e.g., “evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” However, “[t]he duty of good faith ‘is not divorced from the specific clauses of [a] contract and cannot be used to override an express contractual term.’”
The insurance agreement did not require the insurer to give notice of premium lapses and the consequence of such lapses. The insurer had an internal business practice to give such notices, and attempted to do so in this case, but there was considerable complication concerning the correct address and the notices never reached plaintiff. This was of no moment, however, because the duty of good faith is “tied specifically to and is not separate from the duties a contract imposes of the parties,” and here, the policy did not include a requirement that the insurer remind plaintiff that premiums were due “or otherwise notify him before the policy lapses.”
Alternatively, under the facts at hand, even if such a duty was imposed there was still no bad faith. The insurer did mail non-payment notices to the address it had for plaintiff, which was not plaintiff’s actual address. However, it was plaintiff’s own lack of diligence in failing to provide the correct address leading to his never receiving the notices.
Thus, summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed.
Date of Decision: May 29, 2020
Power v. Erie Family Life Insurance Co., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 19-2994, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17083 (3d Cir. May 29, 2020) (Ambro, Hardiman, Restrepo, JJ.)
The insurer issued a policy to the plaintiff’s lender, the mortgage holder. The plaintiff sought relief under the policy, and the insurer argued plaintiff was not a party or third party beneficiary to the policy. The plaintiff brought breach of contract and bad faith claims. The insurer successfully moved to dismiss both claims.
The court first ruled that plaintiff was not an insured or third party beneficiary to the policy. Thus, the breach of contract claim failed.
The court then held that plaintiff could not bring a statutory bad faith claim when he had no rights under the policy. Thus, it was “immaterial that [the plaintiff] may have sufficiently alleged facts to support the other elements of the bad faith cause of action.”
Finally, plaintiff asserted a “common law” bad faith claim. The court observed that Pennsylvania has no common law bad faith tort remedy. Pennsylvania does recognize a contract based claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, separate from statutory bad faith. However, this common law contact claim also failed.
As already stated, the plaintiff was not a party or a third party beneficiary to the insurance contract, thus there could be no contract based bad faith claim. Further, the breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing is not separate from the breach of contract claim. In alleging the insurer “violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying benefits under the policy, his bad faith claim is subsumed into the breach of contract claim and fails with that claim.”
Date of Decision: April 13, 2020
Weiser v. Great American Insurance Co., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1218-KSM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63839 (E.D. Pa. April 13, 2020) (Marston, J.)
