Archive for the 'PA – Manuals' Category

INSURER NOT REQUIRED TO PRODUCE PERSONNEL FILE, BUT IS REQUIRED TO (1) PROVIDE CORPORATE DESIGNEE FOR DEPOSITION, (2) PRODUCE MANUALS AND TRAINING MATERIALS WITHIN CERTAIN TIME/GEOGRAPHIC LIMITS, AND (3) PROVIDE CLAIMS FILES TO THE COURT FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW ON PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The instant dispute involves the depositions of the claims handler and a corporate designee, as well as the scope of document discovery. The insurer made extensive objections to document requests accompanying the notices of deposition, and the any deposition of a corporate designee.  These are described in detail below.

This UIM bad faith case survived an earlier motion to dismiss, and was now proceeding on the merits before Magistrate Judge Perkin.  (Judge Leeson’s 2020 decision allowing the case to proceed is summarized here.)

General Discovery Principles

Magistrate Judge Perkin set out the basic principles guiding his decision:

  1. Rule 26 allows parties to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]”

  2. “Relevance is a broad concept that encompass[es] any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.”

  3. “As an initial matter, therefore, all relevant material is discoverable unless an applicable evidentiary privilege is asserted. The presumption that such matter is discoverable, however, is defeasible.”

  4. “While the discovery rules are meant to be construed liberally, the responses sought [by a party] must comport with the traditional notions of relevancy and must not impose an undue burden on the responding party.”

  5. “To determine the scope of discoverable information under Rule 26(b)(1), the Court looks initially to the pleadings.”

  6. “In deciding which materials are discoverable and which are not, a district court must further distinguish between requests that ‘appear[ ] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ … and demands that are ‘overly broad and unduly burdensome.’”

Documents Requested in Connection with the Claim Handler’s Deposition

The insured did not object to the claim handler’s deposition, but did make multiple objections to the document requests accompanying the notice of deposition.

Manuals and Training Documents Subject to Limited Discovery

Plaintiff’s first request was for “[a]ny and all documents, policies, procedures, rules, regulations, manuals, training documents, or other documents or things relevant to the handling and/or evaluation of Underinsured Motorists claims during the period of 2015-2020.”

Plaintiff’s second request was for “[a] true and correct copy of the complete “Claims Manual/Claims Office Manual” or other such similar document(s) by whatever name or title used by Defendants for the handling of Underinsured Motorists benefits for the years 2015 through and including 2020.”

Plaintiff’s third request was for “[a] true and correct copy of the complete “Training Manual” or other such similar document(s) by whatever name or title used by Defendant for the purpose of training its employees in the handling of Underinsured Motorists benefits claims for the years 2015 through and including 2020.”

Plaintiff’s fourth request was for “[t]rue and correct copies of any and all claims bulletins, internal memoranda, letters, notices, or similar documents sent by management to the claims staff relating to the handling of Underinsured Motorists benefits claims for the years 2015 through and including 2020.”

The court found the first request relevant to both the breach of contract and bad faith claims, specifically ruling that manuals and other training materials are relevant to bad faith claims “where they contain instructions concerning procedures used by employees in processing claims.” Magistrate Judge Perkin added that “[t]raining materials ‘relevant to processing the claim in question’ are discoverable, as they may show, inter alia, ‘that agents of an insurance company recklessly disregarded standard interpretations of a particular contractual provision in denying coverage or deliberatively omitted certain investigatory steps.’”

However, Magistrate Judge Perkin agreed with the insurer that plaintiff’s requests were “overly broad in time, and should be limited to the period from when Defendant was first on notice of a UIM claim through the present.” First notice was when the insurer received correspondence from Plaintiff’s counsel informing Defendant of an anticipated underinsured motorist claim.

Magistrate Judge Perkin limited the geographic scope as well, “to those documents and materials governing underinsured motorist claims in Pennsylvania,” where the underlying accident occurred, where plaintiff resided, and the policy provided for UIM benefits under Pennsylvania law.

Magistrate Judge Perkin rejected the argument that the materials were trade secrets or proprietary in nature, pointing out there was no showing made to this effect but only “bare allegations that the information requested falls under this definition” which were insufficient “to protect such information from discovery.”

The court used the same analysis to address document requests 2-4.

Court Permits Discovery, with Limitations, of Claim Handling and Investigation Files

Plaintiff requested “[t]rue and correct copies of any and all letters, correspondence, documents, reports, or other records which relate to review, evaluation, and/or assessment of the causation or lack thereof of Plaintiff’s injuries following the underlying motor vehicle accident which was relied upon in the handling, assessment, investigation, and/or evaluation of Plaintiff’s UIM claim.”

Plaintiff also requested “[a]ny and all claims, notes, correspondence, records, recordings, documents, letters, phone logs, emails, or other communication writings or things pertaining to [the claim] from October 12, 2016 through present.”

Magistrate Judge Perkin observed that “an insurer, is not permitted to shield the discovery of its entire claims handling and investigation under the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine by hiring an attorney to perform its services. As Plaintiff noted in her brief, a bad faith claim may include “evidence of the insurer’s bad faith that occurred after the filing of the complaint.” The court reviewed the insurer’s privilege log and redacted documents, but could not determine whether the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine actually applied. Thus, Magistrate Judge Perkin ordered the insurer to make the full documents available for in camera review, including “internal file notes regarding communications with legal counsel … ; UIM strategy and evaluation; claim handling[;] Amount of reserves and legal expenses on the UIM and Medical Payment claims[;] … Evaluation Report for Plaintiff’s UIM claim [;] … internal emails regarding receipt of this lawsuit, and assignment to legal counsel … [;] ISO Claim Search report[; and] Asset report regarding [the tortfeasor driver], for consent to settle/waiver of UIM subrogation purposes[.]”

The second request quoted above was also subject to in camera review for the same reasons. The court added that “[t]o the extent that Defendant maintains any of the requested material outside of the web-based system, it shall produce such information immediately to Plaintiff unless it is appropriately protected by a privilege.”

These were limited to the time period from the date the insurer first had notice, as described above.

The insurer also requested “[a]ny and all claim files concerning Plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits, in paper, electronic, and/or other available format.” Magistrate Judge Perkin ruled that “[a]s with the previous two requests, this Court will conduct an in camera review to determine if Defendant properly withheld documents related to this request. Defendant is not required to perform forensic investigation into its computing devices or systems to locate information existing prior to when Defendant’s duty to preserve evidence arose which is no longer accessible. Similarly, Defendant does not need to produce the same ESI in more than one form. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(iii). If Defendant maintains any information responsive to the above request in non-electronic forms, it shall produce such information immediately to Plaintiff unless it duplicative of what has already been produced or properly protected by a privilege.” [Emphasis in original]

Insurer not Compelled to Produce Personnel Files

The insured requested “[p]ersonnel file, including applications for employment, evaluations, awards, commendations, complaints, reprimands, resumes, attendance records for the period of 2016-2018, tests, performance appraisals, documents reflecting job performance and/or employee conduct, letters of commendation, reprimands, letters of termination, personnel action notices, investigative files and reports concerning or substantially concerning [the specific] Claims Specialist, only.”

Magistrate Judge Perkin ruled “[t]he request for personnel information implicates the strong public policy against disclosure of such materials.” Thus, “[w]hile information relating to [the claim handler’s] employment and job performance may be relevant to Plaintiff’s bad faith claim, Plaintiff may learn this information through less invasive means, such as by deposition or interrogatory. … Accordingly, while Plaintiff may obtain the employment information it seeks by deposing [the claim handler], or through interrogatories, Defendant is not compelled to produce the materials relating to the above request.”

Deposition of Corporate Designee Permitted

The court observed that corporate designees are called to testify about their personal knowledge only, but also to speak for the corporation “about matters to which the corporation has reasonable access.” In this case, the insured’s bad faith claim included allegations beyond valuation, “but also claims that defendant mishandled, failed to properly investigate and evaluate the claim and otherwise acted in bad faith.” Plaintiff wanted the 30(b)(6) designee “to represent the collective knowledge of the corporation and to present its positions on certain topics [,] including … “the manner and method of how Defendant instructs, advises, directs, and incentivizes its employees to handle claims is directly related to what, if anything, the adjuster(s) did in handling this claim and why.”

Magistrate Judge Perkin refused to quash the corporate designee’s deposition, finding the insured was “entitled to depose the corporate representative and obtain an official explanation of the claims-handling policies used by” the insurer.

He did not, however, stop there.  Rather, Magistrate Judge Perkin addressed objections to individual matters designated for examination and individual document requests accompanying the subpoena.

  1. “1st Matter for Examination: The thoughts, analysis, evaluation(s), rationale(s), investigation, actions, research, review, and reasoning of the handling adjuster’s supervisor at Defendant insurance company who personally participated in the decision to offer $6,000 on or about October 25, 2019, to resolve Plaintiff’s claim. (The term “participated” as used in this paragraph includes, without limitation, reviewed any documents, analyzed and/or discussed the matter with anyone, approved the offer of compromise or provided any information or input whatsoever into the decision).”

Magistrate Judge Perkin reserved ruling on this area of examination until after he had conducted the in camera review described above.

  1. “2nd Matter for Examination: The existence and content of any writings, files, procedures, claims-handling procedures, guidelines, claims manuals, or documents of any kind including any material contained in any computer which existed at any time from 2015 to the present, applicable to the handling and adjustment of Plaintiff’s claim.”

Magistrate Judge Pekin permitted this area of examination, to allow for questioning on “[t]he existence and content of any writings, files, procedures, claims-handling procedures, guidelines, claims manuals, or documents of any kind which existed from March 16, 2017 through 2020, applicable to the handling and adjustment of Plaintiff’s claim.”

  1. “3rd Matter for Examination: Defendant’s claims handling manuals, guidelines, or any other documents used to instruct personnel on the claims handling and/or adjustment practice used by State Farm to instruct/train/educate/direct or otherwise teach its claims adjusters to adjust first-party Underinsured Motorists (“UIM”) claims as of October 1, 2015.”

The court found this area of questioning relevant, within time and geographic limits, stating “[d]efendant’s claims handling manuals, guidelines, or any other documents used to instruct personnel on the claims handling and/or adjustment practice used by [the insurer] to instruct/train/educate/direct or otherwise teach its claims adjusters to adjust first-party Underinsured Motorists (“UIM”) claims in Pennsylvania from March 16, 2017 through 2020.”

  1. “4th Matter for Examination: State Farm’s policy, practice and procedure for promotion of claims representatives and/or adjusters within State Farm as of October 1, 2015 through the present.”

The court found the insurer’s “policies, practices, and procedures for promotions of claims representatives and adjusters is relevant to its claim of bad faith. To the extent that there are employee incentives to close out insureds’ claims, or handle claims in a particular manner, such information could reveal facts relevant to the motivations of the employees who handled Plaintiff’s claim.” Discovery was thus allowed, within a limited time frame.

  1. “5th Matter for Examination: Defendant’s training materials, practices, and procedures for claims adjusters handling UIM claims as of October 1, 2015 through the present.”

The court permitted discovery within time and geographic limits, “Defendant’s training materials, practices, and procedures for claims adjusters handling UIM claims in Pennsylvania as of March 16, 2017 through 2020.”

  1. “6th Matter for Examination: Defendant’s methods, policies, procedures, and practices used to calculate the value of damages in a UIM claim as of October 1, 2015 through the present.”

Again, the court permitted discovery within time and geographic limits, “Defendant’s methods, policies, procedures, and practices used to calculate the value of damages in a UIM claim in Pennsylvania as of March 16, 2017 through 2020.”

  1. “7th Matter for Examination: Any and all materials provided to claims adjusters handling UIM claims for the purpose of training claims adjusters and/or representatives as to calculating, evaluation, assessing, and determining value of damages as of October 1, 2015 through the present.”

Again, the court permitted discovery within time and geographic limits, “Any and all materials provided to claims adjusters handling UIM claims in Pennsylvania for the purpose of training claims adjusters and/or representatives as to calculating, evaluation, assessing, and determining value of damages as of March 16, 2017 through 2020.”

  1. “8th Matter for Examination: The policies and procedures for evaluating, assessing, and investigating personal injuries to an insured in a UIM claim as of October 1, 2015 through the present.”

Again, the court permitted discovery within time and geographic limits, “The policies and procedures for evaluating, assessing, and investigating personal injuries to an insured in a UIM claim in Pennsylvania as of March 16, 2017 through 2020.”

The court next addressed the document requests accompanying the corporate designee’s notice of deposition.

  1. “Request 1: Any and all claims manuals, reference materials, training manuals, and/or guidelines for interpretation of the relevant insurance policy.”

Following his analysis in addressing the document requests accompanying the claim handler’s notice of deposition, Magistrate Judge Perkin found the request relevant to the bad faith claim, within the limited time period.  To the extent the response would be identical to the other request, however, he would not require a separate production; rather, the defendant could cross reference that earlier production to bates numbers.

  1. “Request 2: Any and all documents, materials, manuals, guides, claims manuals, handbooks, training materials or other items relating to the topics set forth above.”

Again following the same request to the claim handler, the documents were relevant to the bad faith claim within a limited time period, and the same process of cross-referencing to bates numbers could be followed.

  1. “Request 3: The personnel files of all company employees who worked on Plaintiff’s UIM claim.”

Again following the earlier analysis, the insurer was not required to produce written materials, leaving the insured to pursue that employment information through the deposition or interrogatories.

Date of Decision:  January 22, 2021

SOLANO-SANCHEZ v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 19-4016, 2021 WL 229400 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2021) (Perkin, M.J.)

INSURER COMPELLED TO PRODUCE “BEST PRACTICES” GUIDE (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, Western District Magistrate Judge Kelly ordered production of the insurer’s claim handling guidelines.

The insurer denied UIM coverage, claiming the insureds waived their benefits. The carrier conceded its UIM waiver forms did not comply with Pennsylvania law, but took the position it still properly denied the claim under the circumstances.  The insureds sued for breach of contract and bad faith.

The insured’s document requests sought “all written policies, claims and manuals, company manuals, operational guidelines, and/or any other policies, procedures, guidelines, manuals, and/or instructional/educational material pertaining to the handling of underinsured motorist claims ….” The insurer objected on the basis that these documents were confidential and proprietary, but that “if plaintiffs’ counsel will agree to sign a confidentiality order, [the insurer] will produce a copy of the Table of Contents for its claims manual and the plaintiffs can identify which chapter or chapters they believe they need to review.”

The carrier later stated there were no claim manuals, but rather the insurer maintained a “Best Practices” guide. The insurer produced part of its Best Practices guide, with redactions and removed pages, regarding liability, subrogation, and first party medical benefits. The redactions were not specifically identified and there was no privilege log.

The insured moved to compel greater production.

The carrier responded that “evidence of claims handling is irrelevant to this proceeding because the … claim was ‘never ‘handled’ since [the carrier] concluded there was nothing to handle.” It also took the position that neither liability nor the nature and extent of the injuries were in dispute, and the only issue was whether coverage was properly denied.

Separately, the carrier objected to production because such “production would otherwise cause it harm based on the nature of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s law firm; that is, a well-advertised law firm that represents ‘injured people.’” Apparently, the carrier was concerned that plaintiffs’ counsel would use its manual in future lawsuits, brought by different plaintiffs against the insurer.

In addressing the insureds’ motion to compel, the court first observed that claims manuals and training materials are “relevant [in bad faith cases] because the manuals contain instructions concerning procedures used by insurance company employees in handling UIM claims, like Plaintiffs’ claims herein. Though departures from established standards in handling a UIM claim would not alone establish bad faith, such information ‘is probative evidence for plaintiff to demonstrate bad faith.’”

The court rejected the insurer’s argument that it did not have to produce these materials because there had been no claim handling. “That [the insurer] failed to process the claim at all does not necessarily render guidelines as to how claims are ordinarily processed irrelevant and, at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot be said that the information sought is unrelated to the facts at issue.” The insureds had agreed that discovery could have some limits, and the insurer did not have to produce materials in the Best Practices guide “pertaining to rental vehicles, property damage, vehicle theft, and other sections unrelated to the evaluat[ion] and/or handling of an injury claim….”

Thus, the insureds “met their initial burden to establish the relevance of the requested material within the broad scope of permissible discovery and [the insurer] failed to adequately show that the information, limited to the handling of UIM claims for bodily injury, is irrelevant simply because it denied the claim.”

As to the second objection, the court found nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposing a discovery “limitation based on a law firm’s advertising budget or the nature of its legal representation of injured persons….” Any concern that these materials might be used in some future litigation could be addressed with plaintiff’s counsel in negotiating and drafting an appropriate confidentiality agreement.

Thus, the insurer had to produce the Best Practices guide, with only the redactions and limitations described above.

Date of Decision: December 9, 2020

Keeler v. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc., U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-271, 2020 WL 7239568 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2020) (Kelly, M.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.)

COURT PERMITS SOME UNDERWRITING DISCOVERY EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY BAD FAITH CLAIM (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insurer denied coverage under a “regular use exclusion” in this UIM case. The complaint included a breach of contract claim, but no statutory bad faith claim. Plaintiff wanted to depose plaintiff’s corporate designee. The carrier argued the proposed deposition subjects were irrelevant to coverage, absent a bad faith claim, and moved for a protective order.

Middle District Magistrate Judge Saporito found that plaintiff could pursue certain limited discovery on underwriting, even absent a statutory bad faith claim. This was based primarily on the insurer raising the “regular use exclusion” as an affirmative defense, and the insureds alleging that the carrier owed “a fiduciary, contractual and statutory obligation to investigate, evaluate, and negotiate [her] UIM claim in good faith and to arrive at a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement.” [The reference to “statutory obligation” was not interpreted to mean plaintiffs were pleading a section 8371 statutory bad faith claim.]

Plaintiff had already deposed the carrier’s adjuster, but wanted a corporate designee to testify on the regular use exclusion and underwriting practices. This included the following subjects:

  1. The underwriting procedures in place … for the period January 1, 2017[,] through the current date;

  2. The underwriting regulations necessary to obtain the status of “preferred driver” under a … policy of insurance;

  3. The determinative factors and costs associated with UIM coverage …;

  4. The determinative factors and costs associated with UM coverage …;

  5. The determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UIM coverage…;

  6. The determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UM coverage …;

  7. The factors [the insurer] utilizes in determining whether a vehicle is available for the “regular use” of an insured;

  8. How the term “regular use” is defined in the applicable … policy and related documents;

  9. Whether the … regular use exclusion must be accompanied by a stacking waiver;

  10. All steps and measures [the insurer] takes to explain to its insureds the effect of the “regular use exclusion,” “household exclusion,” “family car exclusion,” and “unlisted driver exclusion”;

  11. How the regular use exclusion is discussed in the [insurer’s] Claims Manual; and

  12. Any facts supporting [the insurer’s] legal theories and defenses.

The court found that although the insureds did not allege statutory bad faith, they did plead breach of the contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. Magistrate Judge Saporito found this sufficient to open the door to some greater discovery compared to a simple breach of contract case.  He relied on three cases permitting discovery on the carrier’s decisionmaking process, even in the absence of a statutory bad faith count. Rau v. Allstate, Swientisky v. American States, and Craker v. State Farm.

The court found the following areas of inquiry relevant and discoverable: factors used to determine “whether a vehicle is available for the ‘regular use’ of an insured”; “[h]ow the term ‘regular use’ is defined in the applicable … policy and related documents”; whether the “regular use exclusion must be accompanied by a stacking waiver”; “[h]ow the regular use exclusion is discussed in the [insurer’s] Claims Manual”; “[a]ny facts supporting [the insurer’s] legal theories and defenses”; and “[a]ll steps and measures [the insurer] takes to explain to its insureds the effect of the ‘regular use exclusion….”

On the other hand, discovery was not permitted on matters “irrelevant to the issue regarding the application of the ‘regular use exclusion,’ as they relate to underwriting procedures, underwriting regulations necessary to obtain the status of ‘preferred driver,’ and the determinative factors and costs associated with UIM and UM coverage as well as stacking for those coverages.” Discovery concerning other exclusions was also irrelevant.

Thus, discovery was specifically barred for “[t]he underwriting procedures in place … for the period January 1, 2017[,] through the current date”; underwriting regulations necessary to obtain preferred driver status;  “[t]he determinative factors and costs associated with UIM coverage”; “determinative factors and costs associated with UM coverage”; “determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UIM coverage”; and “determinative factors and costs associated with stacking of UM coverage….”

Magistrate Judge Saporito further found the permitted discovery proportional, stating “the amount in controversy represents two-thirds of the total available insurance; [the insurer], as the drafter of the policy, has ready access to all relevant information especially regarding the denial of the claim; the importance of the discovery may be determinative of the issue whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any UIM benefits under the policy; and the burden of producing one witness is outweighed by the benefit in answering the questions about the validity of [the insurer’s] affirmative defense of the regular use exclusion.”

Date of Decision: November 4, 2020

Evanina v. The First Liberty Insurance Corporation, U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:20-cv-00751, 2020 WL 6494883 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2020) (Saporito, Jr., M.J.)

THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “INSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH” (Pennsylvania Superior Court) (Non-Precedential)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this unpublished opinion, Pennsylvania’s Superior Court addressed whether “institutional bad faith” states a private cause of action under Pennsylvania law. Much like yesterday’s post, the Superior Court emphasized that Pennsylvania bad faith law requires focusing on the case and parties at hand, and not the insurer’s conduct toward other parties or its alleged universal practices. The court also addressed other issues concerning statutory bad faith and Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), among other matters. In this post, we only address all the bad faith and  UTPCPL claims against the insurer.

Factual Background and Trial Court Rulings

The case begins with a home remodeler’s attempt to destroy a bee’s nest in one small section of a house. This unfortunate effort only caused larger problems, contaminating and damaging the house. The chain of misfortune continued when remediation efforts led to more damage, with the home allegedly becoming uninhabitable. At a minimum, all sides agreed some level of reconstruction work was now needed.

The homeowners’ insurer engaged a contractor to fix the original problem. The homeowners eventually challenged the quality of that contractor’s work, which they contended added to the damage. They eventually refused to allow that contractor on site, and unilaterally hired a second contractor to take over. Both the insured and insurer retained their own engineers, who disagreed on the scope of the damage and reconstruction work required.

The second contractor was owned by the insured husband’s parents. The husband himself was the second company’s project manager on the job. The trial court stated that the husband agreed with the position that he “negotiated an oral contract on behalf of … himself and his wife… with himself, as project manager of and on behalf of [the second contractor]” for the reconstruction work. The insurer and first contractor disputed the necessity and cost of the work carried out by the second contractor, as well as other costs.

The trial court ruled for the insurer on breach of warranty, emotional distress, UTPCPL, and bad faith claims, but in favor of the insureds on their breach of contract claim.

There is no Cause of Action in Pennsylvania for Institutional Bad Faith

The insureds argued that institutional bad faith could be the basis for asserting statutory bad faith. Under this theory, a claim can be based solely on an insurer’s policies, practices, and procedures as applied universally to all insureds. The present plaintiffs wanted to introduce evidence to support such institutionalized bad faith conduct. Both the trial and appellate courts rejected this theory.

The Superior Court emphasized that a bad faith action is limited to “the company’s conduct toward the insured asserting the claim.” Thus, “’bad faith claims are fact specific and depend on the conduct of the insurer vis-à-vis the insured.’” The Superior Court agreed with the trial court “that there is no separate cause of action of institutional bad faith.” It stated, that the bad faith statute “authorizes specified actions by the trial court ‘if the court finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured . . . ,’ not to the world at large.” (Court’s emphasis).

The Insurer did not Act in Bad Faith

  1. The policy and procedure manual/guideline arguments failed on the merits.

The Superior Court ruled that the trial court’s findings did not result in a refusal to consider evidence relating to the insurer’s conduct and practices. In fact, the insurer’s manuals, guidelines, and procedures were admitted as evidence, all of which were considered by the trial court. This evidence, however, was not considered as part of an institutional bad faith case. Rather, it was only relevant to determining if the insurer acted in bad faith toward the specific plaintiff-insureds, and not to the universe of all insureds.

In deciding the bad faith issue, when the trial court was presented with evidence of the insurer’s policies and procedures, it “did not find them to be improper when applied to the [insureds’] claim, although not a separate claim concerning ‘institutional bad faith.’” (Court’s emphasis) Thus, the actual plaintiffs could not make out a case for themselves on this evidence because they “failed to establish a nexus between [the insurer’s] business policies and the specific claims … asserted in support of bad faith.”

  1. The insureds could not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.

The trial court found the insurer had not acted in bad faith on other facts of record, and the Superior Court found no abuse of discretion in this ruling. Both courts emphasized the insured’s burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the trial court stated, “[i]cannot be reasonably said, given the facts and evidence adduced at trial, that [the insurer] lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits and/or that [it] knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis to deny benefits…. Mere negligence or bad judgment in failing to pay a claim does not constitute bad faith. An insurer may always aggressively investigate and protect its interests. Particularly in light of the higher burden of proof, specifically the requirement that [insureds] must prove a bad faith claim by ‘clear and convincing’ evidence, the record in this case does not support the assertion of statutory bad faith….”

Specifically, the court focused on alleged (i) failures to pay engineering fees, (ii) delays in hiring engineers, (iii) unduly restricting the engineer’s ability to opine, and (iv) instructions that the first contractor and its engineer disregard building codes.

The insurer adduced evidence that (i) it paid engineering fees, (ii) its original decision not to hire an engineer was done based on information provided by the first contractor and a building code officer, (iii) it did agree to hire an engineer once the insureds provided their list of concerns, and (iv) the engineer opined the home was not uninhabitable. The insurer also put on evidence that its adjuster never told the first contractor to ignore the building code, but rather expected the contractor to comply with existing code requirements.

On these facts, the Superior Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the insureds failed to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.

The UTPCPL does not Apply to Claim Handling

Both the trial court and Superior Court concluded that the UTPCPL does not apply to insurer claim handling cases.

Date of Decision: January 14, 2020

Wenk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 1284 WDA 2018, No. 1287 WDA 2018, No. 1288 WDA 2018, 2020 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 178 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 14, 2020) (Lazarus, Olson, Shogan, JJ.) (non-precedential)

The January 14, 2020 decision was not a final disposition, and a subsequent opinion was filed on February 7, 2020, attached here, which appears to be identical to the January 14, 2020 opinion.

Our thanks to Daniel Cummins of the excellent Tort Talk blog for brining this case to our attention.

APRIL 2018 BAD FAITH CASES: $21 MILLION BAD FAITH JUDGMENT REVERSED BECAUSE TRIAL COURT “ENGAGED IN A LIMITED AND HIGHLY SELECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS AND DREW THE MOST MALIGNANT POSSIBLE INFERENCES FROM THE FACTS IT CHOSE TO CONSIDER” (Pennsylvania Superior Court)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Sometimes, lengthy litigation is described as an odyssey, warranted or not. In the Berg v. Nationwide case, the litigation has gone on as long as the times covered in both the Odyssey and the Iliad; and this most recent decision may not be the final word in its history.

In this 2-1 decision, the Superior Court reversed the trials judge’s $21 Million bad faith award against the insurer, and directed judgment for the insurer.

The essence of the majority opinion is in its final paragraph: “The trial court engaged in a limited and highly selective analysis of the facts and drew the most malignant possible inferences from the facts it chose to consider. We do not believe our appellate standard of review, circumscribed as it is, requires or even permits us to affirm the trial court’s decision in this case. This is especially so given Plaintiffs’ burden of proving their case by clear and convincing evidence.”

By contrast, the dissenting opinion begins: “Because it is not this Court’s role to usurp the fact-finding power of the trial court by its own interpretation of the factual and testimonial evidence, I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s decision to remand this matter for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”

Court History

This case started with damage to plaintiffs’ car in September of 1996. The first step on this long road was between treating the car as a total loss vs. repairing it. The expenses at issue were $25,000 for a total loss and approximately half that for repairs. Under the insurance contract at issue, the carrier had significant control over the repair process itself. The insurer chose repairs, and the struggle begins in earnest with the beleaguered history of those repairs, and the litigation born from it.

Suit was filed in January 1998. The matter was bifurcated for trial purposes. In 2004, the first phase went to a jury, on fraud, conspiracy, and consumer protection law claims (UTPCPL). The jury found for plaintiffs on the UTPCPL claim, and awarded $1,925 against the auto repair shop and $295 against the insurer. The second trial phase was before the judge only, on the issues of treble damages, and statutory bad faith, both non-jury decisions. In 2007, the trial judge ruled for the insurer on the Bergs’ bad faith claim.

They appealed, but in 2008, the Superior Court ruled that they had waived all issues on appeal by failing to serve the trial court with a copy of their Rule 1925(b) statement. In 2010, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and remanded to the Superior Court.

In 2012, reviewing the appeal on the merits, the Superior Court reversed and remanded the 2007 trial court decision. As discussed in our May 2012 blog posting, among other things, the Superior Court concluded that the trial court failed to consider various claims handling issues during the course of repairs and thereafter, as well as failing to consider the violation of other statutes in determining bad faith. Moreover, while the trial court would not consider the $900,000 spent to date by the carrier in defending the action, the Superior Court said this could be considered as evidence of bad faithfocusing on the concept of claims handling, and tying the amount to the claims handling.

After remand, a non-jury trial was held in 2014, and the trial judge found substantial evidence of bad faith in the carrier’s conduct, awarding $18,000,000 in punitive damages and $3,000,000 in attorneys’ fees. Again, this decision is discussed in our 2014 blog post.

On April 9, 2018, a 2-1 majority reversed that judgment, and entered judgment for the insurer. The dissenter would have affirmed. We discuss the highlights below, and commend the reader to the attached opinions for the lengthy drill-down detail the majority exercised in reaching its decision, with some of the same in the dissent.

Highlights of the 2018 Majority Opinion

  1. An appellate court can closely scrutinize the facts of record.

The most significant aspect of the majority opinion is its willingness to drill down into the factual record, and to put the trial judge’s factual findings and conclusions under very close analysis. The majority recognized that deference is due the trial court as trier of fact, but would not give deference where findings of fact were not supported in the record, and where conclusions about the factual record did not have the support of actual facts in the record. For the majority, hand-in-glove with the necessity for this oversight function is the heightened burden of proof in statutory bad faith cases, i.e., proof by clear and convincing evidence.

Specifically, the majority stated: “This Court will reverse a finding of bad faith where the trial court’s ‘critical factual findings are either unsupported by the record or do not rise to the level of bad faith.’” (emphasis in original). The majority added that the “[factfinder] may not be permitted to reach its verdict merely on the basis of speculation and conjecture, but there must be evidence upon which logically its conclusion may be based. Therefore, when a party who has the burden of proof relies upon circumstantial evidence and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, such evidence, in order to prevail, must be adequate to establish the conclusion sought and must so preponderate in favor of that conclusion as to outweigh in the mind of the fact-finder any other evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom which are inconsistent therewith.”

After doing its own analysis of the same trial court findings of fact, the dissent replied that: “The majority vacates the judgment ‘because the record does not support many of the trial court’s critical findings of fact.’ …. In doing so, however, the Majority tacitly admits that other critical findings of the trial court are supported by clear and convincing evidence.” (Emphasis in original).

Again, we commend the reader to the attached majority opinion for its fact analysis, and the dissent’s analysis of the facts it concludes support affirming the trial court.

  1. Discovery violations do not constitute bad faith litigation conduct.

As stated by the majority: “The trial court found that Appellant hid and refused to give discoverable material to Plaintiffs, never produced photographs of the Jeep taken during the appraisal process, and refused to produce [a] report until ordered to do so during discovery. To the extent the trial court based its finding of bad faith upon discovery violations, it committed clear error. While it is true that a finding of bad faith under section 8371 may be premised upon an insurer’s conduct occurring before, during or after litigation, … we have refused to recognize that an insurer’s discovery practices constitute grounds for a bad faith claim under section 8371, absent the use of discovery to conduct an improper investigation.”

The Bad Faith statute “is designed to provide a remedy for bad faith conduct by an insurer in its capacity as an insurer for breach of its fiduciary duty to an insured by virtue of the parties’ insurance policy and not as a legal adversary in a lawsuit filed against it by an insured. Discovery violations are governed under the exclusive provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nonetheless, even when considering these issues, we still find no merit to them supporting a bad faith claim under section 8371 by clear and convincing evidence.”

The majority recognized, among other things, that while there was an unwarranted refusal to produce an unredacted claims log, because the redacted material included no “smoking gun” this did not go beyond a discovery dispute subject to sanctions under rules governing discovery. Thus, it could not be used as actionable bad faith conduct subject to statutory relief under section 8371.

  1. There was no clear and convincing evidence of bad faith via a scorched earth policy, and the length of litigation alone is not evidence of bad faith.

The majority characterized the trial judge’s decision as improperly relying on an earlier Superior Court Opinion to establish a fact in the present case. The prior Opinion involved a ruling against the same insurer, but involved another party with a different dispute. That prior Opinion found the existence of a claim manual, in evidence in that case, material to its finding of bad faith because the manual directed bad faith practices. The Berg trial judge used that earlier Superior Court Opinion as a basis to include the same manual as part of the bad faith evidence in the Berg case.

On appeal, the Berg majority refused to permit this factual assumption about the existence of an internal manual directing bad faith coverage practices. Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, there had to be actual facts adduced in this case establishing the manual’s existence.

The majority further rejected the trial court’s using the length of the Berg litigation as evidence of bad faith. The majority had done some analysis rebutting that notion during its review of the record, and declined “further to conduct a detailed analysis of nearly two decades of highly contentious litigation and we note that the trial court did not do so in its findings. Plaintiffs had the right to prosecute their case zealously within the bounds of the law, just as Appellant had the right to defend itself if it believed its personnel did not act in bad faith. We cannot arbitrarily impose a limit on the time and resources an insurer spends in defending a bad faith action.”

  1. Matters, and thoughts, not of record cannot be considered.

The majority observed the trial court opinion was over 100 pages, and “devoted substantial portions … to matters not of record.” The majority was “troubled by [the] failure to limit … analysis to the facts of this case and applicable law.” The majority gave a number of examples of passages that concerned them. Excerpts of these non-record conclusions, which the majority describes as the trial court having “offered its thoughts”, concerning the insurance industry are quoted from the trial court’s opinion.

We quote just the first example of these conclusions/thoughts that the majority found to be outside the record. “[W]hat [p]laintiff, and more importantly, what lawyer in his right mind will compete with a conglomerate insurance company if the insurance company can drag the case out 18 years and is willing to spend $3 million in defense expenses to keep the policyholder from getting just compensation under the contract. Its message is 1) that it is a defense minded carrier, 2) do not mess with us if you know what is good for you, 3) you cannot run with the big dogs, 4) there is no level playing field to be had in your case, 5) you cannot afford it and what client will pay thousands of dollars to fight the battle, 6) so we can get away with anything we want to, and 7) you cannot stop us.” The majority clearly found such language out of bounds.

The majority’s conclusion.

In its conclusion, the majority states, among other things: “We disagree with the Dissent’s assertion that we are substituting our own findings for those of the trial court. Rather, our review of the extensive record in this matter convinces us that the trial court’s findings are not supported by the facts of record and our citations to the certified record belie any assertion that we have improperly substituted our findings for the trial court’s. The law permits a finding of bad faith only on clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’ ….The trial court’s highly selective citation to a voluminous record plainly failed to meet that standard. Respectfully, we believe the Dissent, under the guise of strict adherence to the standard of review, makes the same error.”

Date of Decision: April 9, 2018

Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Pennsylvania Superior Court, No. 713 MDA 2015, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 317 (Pa. Super. Ct. April 9, 2018) (Stabile and Ott, JJ., with Stevens, J., dissenting)

An order granting reconsideration and withdrawing this opinion was entered on May 31, 2018, and new opinions were issued on June 5, 2018 along the same lines, consistent with the foregoing majority and dissent.

 

SEPTEMBER 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT ADDRESS DISCOVERY OF RESERVES, SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, CLAIMS MANUALS, AND THE RULES FOR ORGANIZING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involved the adjustment of a fire loss claim. The insurer made over $1 Million in payments during a two-year period. The insured brought a bad faith action over claims handling and payment during that two-year period. This opinion addresses the insured’s motion to compel discovery.

Once the party seeking discovery meets its initial burden by showing relevance, “the burden then shifts to the party opposing discovery to articulate why discovery should be withheld.”

“The party resisting production must demonstrate to the court ‘that the requested documents either do not come within the broad scope of relevance defined pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) or else are of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.’”

  1. Organization of Document Production

3,200 pages of documents were provided on an unsearchable pdf. The plaintiff objected that the documents were not as kept in the usual course of business or referenced to particular document requests. The insurer responded they were provided as kept in the ordinary course of business.

The Court stated that “the producing party has the choice to either produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or to label them to correspond with the request categories.” Thus, “labeling is not required where the party otherwise complies with the rule by producing the documents as they are kept in the normal course of business.”

The Court accepted the insurer’s “representation that the documents were produced as kept in the usual course of business.” The insurer offered “some narrative explanation of what was produced, and how it was produced.” The Court would not require the insurer “to label the documents to correspond to [the] requests,” where it had “sufficiently described its document production as containing emails, claims notes,  and correspondence—all of which are pieces of the entire file that Plaintiff requested.”

In asserting that the documents were “not produced … as kept in the usual course of business,” the insured’s argument was “devoid of any particularized factual basis for this claim.” Thus, this aspect of the motion to compel was denied.

  1. Discovery of Reserves and Settlement Authority

The Court first observed the split in authority on discovery of reserves. It “ordered in camera inspection of the loss reserves ‘to the extent that those documents contain information other than specific amounts set for loss reserves.’”

The Court stated that “the reserve information may be relevant to Plaintiffs bad faith claim based on the timeline of this case. For instance, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant insisted on a release before issuing payments because Defendant knew it was offering less than what it owed; that Defendant knowingly delayed the payment of claims to save money and to injure Plaintiff; and that the release is invalid.”

The Court cited authority for the proposition that “reserve information relevant to whether insurer acted in bad faith in not settling case within policy limits before trial” could be discovered. “Accordingly, to the extent employees or agents of the company discussed the value of Plaintiffs claim or other factual information regarding the claim in connection with setting the reserves, such information may be relevant.”

Still the Court did not order direct production of previously redacted material, but ordered the insurer to “produce unredacted copies of the reserve and settlement authority information to the Court for in camera inspection.”

  1. Discovery of Claims Manuals

“Courts within this district have found that limited portions of claims manuals are relevant in bad faith insurance cases.” The Court observed thatEastern District Judges “have typically found that information contained in claims manuals is discoverable to the extent that it concerns employee procedures for processing claims.”

The insured sought “[t]he portion of the claims manual regarding any portion of the Policy relied upon by you in making a coverage decision on plaintiff’s claim.” The specific bad faith claim involved the manner and timing of payment.   The Court found the document request overly broad, and that it went further than the bad faith claim as asserted.

The Court did disagree with the insurer’s argument that discovery can only be permitted for a total denial of coverage.

The Court limited the document request “to include only portions of the claims manuals that discuss policies relating to valuation of claims, and the timing of claims payments.”

Date of Decision: August 9, 2017

Bala City Line, LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION No.: 16-cv-4249, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126579 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2017) (Sitarski, M.J.)

MAY 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: COURT DISCUSSES STAY AND SEVERANCE OF BAD FAITH CLAIMS, IN CONTEXT OF SETTING STANDARD FOR DISCOVERY OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE ON COVERAGE/CONTRACT CLAIMS (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This exhaustive opinion on discovery of extrinsic evidence sets forth a working standard for determining permissible discovery in declaratory judgment insurance coverage contract actions. After a detailed overview of pertinent case law and the 2015 rule amendments focusing on proportionality, the court held that “litigants who wish to discover extrinsic evidence in a contract interpretation case must (1) point to specific language in the agreement itself that is genuinely ambiguous or that extrinsic evidence is likely to render genuinely ambiguous; and (2) show that the requested extrinsic evidence is also likely to resolve the ambiguity without imposing unreasonable expense.”

In this case, the discovery sought did not fall within those aims and a motion to compel was denied.

To provide context by contrast, the court included an analysis of discovery in bad faith cases within its overall discussion. In instances where a plaintiff seeks underwriting files and claims manuals, the presence of a bad faith claim makes their “discoverability more likely, yet it by no means guarantees it.” In that context, “[t]he issue in a bad faith case is whether the insurer acted recklessly or with ill will towards the plaintiff in a particular case, not whether the defendants’ business practices were generally reasonable.”

By contrast, under Pennsylvania law, declaratory judgment actions for coverage are contract-based claims controlled by the express language in the contract, and the language of such integrated contracts will “often will suffice to dictate the proper outcome without reference to any external sources.”

To provide further contrast, the court looked at district court case law in the Third Circuit on stays, and severance of bad faith claims from coverage actions, where courts bifurcated the two claims and the different discovery related to them. These cases observe the differences between discovery and proof in bad faith cases and coverage cases, and that the coverage/contract claims can require less discovery in reaching resolution. [The court in this case had previously dismissed plaintiff’s bad faith claim].

Date of Decision: May 12, 2017

Westfield Insurance Company v. Icon Legacy Custom Modular Homes, No. 15-539, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72624 (M.D. Pa. May 12, 2017) (Brann, J.)

 

MARCH 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: FINEMAN, KREKSTEIN & HARRIS OBTAINS SIGNIFICANT VICTORY FOR INSURER IN DEFEATING UIM BAD FAITH CLAIM AT TRIAL IN PHILADELPHIA’S COMMERCE COURT (Philadelphia Commerce Program)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In a bad faith case that actually went to trial, in Philadelphia’s Commerce Court, Fineman, Krekstein & Harris won a finding in favor of the insurer in a hard fought case, involving a myriad of bad faith issues. The court issued a 37 page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, vindicating the positions argued and case presented for the insurer.

The insureds argued, among other things, that there were undue delays in claims handling, adjusters did not keep claims files in accordance with policy manuals, and reserves were improperly set. Among other things, the insurer focused its arguments on the timing of the insureds first making a demand for payment; reliance upon competent counsel in reaching decisions; and that the insureds’ original demand for the $1,000,000 policy limits was never lowered through the course of the UIM case.

In its conclusions, among other things, the court observed there is no heightened duty to insureds in the UIM context, and that even negligence or bad judgments do not equate to bad faith. The court made clear that delay is not bad faith per se, and that evaluating delay includes an analysis of the reasonableness of denying a claim. Moreover, even if unreasonable, to constitute bad faith the delay must be knowing or reckless. Bad faith is measured from the time demand is made.

The court also stated that undervaluing a claim is not bad faith if there is a reasonable basis for the valuation. Thus, a low but reasonable valuation is not bad faith. A settlement offer in the insurer’s low range of estimated value also is not bad faith. On the facts of this case, the court observed that the insurer never took the position that it would pay nothing on the claim, and as described below, made a number of offers.

The court found it was reasonable under the circumstances for the insurer to decline mediation two weeks before the arbitration was to take place. The insurer’s counsel testified that it was too late to mediate, and that there was no indication the insureds would lower their demand. The court observed that in evaluating bad faith, courts weigh the insureds’ decision not to negotiate down from a policy limit demand, even though the insured is not required to negotiate. The court found that settlement almost always requires a mutual give and take, which did not occur in this case.

The insurer was required to pay $600,000 under the UIM arbitration award. The court found, however, there was no evidence the insureds would have accepted $600,000 to settle the case prior to arbitration.

The court also took into consideration the actual difference between the ultimate UIM arbitration award, the insurer’s final offer, and the insured’s demand. In this case, the insured’s final offer was approximately $182,000 below the ultimate award, but the insureds’ policy limit demand was $400,000 greater than the award. The court found the insurer’s final settlement offer was reasonable, and that earlier offers for lesser sums were permissible interim offers. The court explained the reasonableness of each offer in its context.

Among other facts addressed in the court’s conclusion of law, the court gave weight to the fact that the insurer’s UIM defense counsel received a report from his own expert that counsel had not requested. Furthermore, defense counsel disagreed with the report’s conclusions. However, instead of withholding the report, counsel and the insurer’s representatives produced it to the insureds.

Moreover, the insurer used a high-end number from this same report in coming up with the basis for its final offer. The arbitration panel also used that number, rather than the insureds’ expert’s even higher number, in coming up with its arbitration award. The court stated that the insurer did not have to base its decision upon the insured’s expert rather than the insurer’s own expert.

The court found the insurer’s investigation was lengthier than it should have been, but did not constitute bad faith. The court found the insurer’s request for an independent medical examination was not evidence of bad faith. Nor was this a case of setting a reserve and never moving from that number during the course of the claim. The court found no discrepancy in the manner of setting reserves and the nature of the investigation that showed intent or recklessness in undervaluing the claim. As to the claims handling, even if unduly lengthy or negligent, this did not constitute bad faith.

The court further found that the carrier’s representatives sought UIM defense counsel’s advice in good faith, and that counsel was competent to give advice on defense and valuation of the claim. Although this was not a strict advice of counsel defense, since the insurer’s representatives ultimately made their own decisions, the thorough nature of counsel’s advice, when considered as a component of their decision making, supported the reasonableness of their claims handling decisions.

Date of Decision: March 21, 2017

Richman v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Sept. Term 2014, No. 1552, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia (C.C.P. Phila. Mar. 21, 2017) (McInerney, J.) (Commerce Program)

S. David Fineman of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris was lead defense counsel.

MARCH 2017 BAD FAITH CASES: INSUREDS ALLOWED DISCOVERY OF UNDWRITING MANUAL AND FILES, BUT NOT PERSONNEL FILES (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This case involves cross actions for declaratory judgments on a lawyer’s professional liability policy, and bad faith claims by the attorneys against the carrier. The attorneys moved to compel production of the insurer’s underwriting manual and the underwriting files, as well as the personnel files of three employees identified as having worked on the coverage file.

There was no clear case law on production of underwriting files, though the 2011 Consugar case decided by Judge Munley in the Middle District had some relevance. Thus, as with most discovery issues, the court looked at the particulars of the case before it.

The court found that production of the underwriting materials was proper. Although the insured did not bring any underwriting claims, the court observed that in supporting their bad faith claim, the attorneys argued that there were premium increases imposed by the insurer relating to commencement of the underlying litigation. Thus, “[g]iven the bad faith claim and the related allegations, the underwriting materials may well be relevant.” [Note: The opinion does not indicate whether the bad faith claims are under section 8371, common law contractual bad faith, or both. Thus, the question as to whether a premium increase can constitute the actionable denial of a benefit under a statutory bad faith claim is not clear.]

The insureds were not successful in obtaining the personnel files. They argued they were entitled to the information in the personnel files to gain knowledge about “the insurer’s corporate policy, standards, and procedures … relating to [the insurer’s] state of mind and relationship with its employees, and information regarding the relationship between the corporate policies and the training of the claims employees”

“Because there is a strong public policy against disclosure of personnel information, such requests are subject to a heightened relevancy standard.” Again, there was no clear case law, and the court stated it must look at the particular facts of the case. Relevant factors in the discovery of personnel files include “whether there is another way for the requesting party to obtain the information sought … whether there is other evidence suggesting the personnel files are likely to include relevant information … how broad the request is … and how closely the personnel files relate to the requesting party’s claims.”

The balance weighed against production. Although the “request is relatively narrow in that it asks for only the files of the employees who worked on its claim and has agreed to a number of redactions, the other factors do not meet the heightened relevancy requirement.” “The reasons supplied … for wanting the personnel files such as whether the claims employees had some incentive to deny its claim and the nature of the relationship between the company and its employees could likely be obtained through the depositions of those employees.” “Likewise, [the insured] has not presented any other evidence to support the[] theory that the personnel files are likely to include information relevant to their claims.” Thus, the insureds could not meet the heightened standards in obtaining personnel files.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2017

Westport Ins. Corp. v. Hippo Fleming & Pertile Law Offices, NO. 15-251, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31659 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2017) (Gibson, J.)