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…

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…

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…