Archive for the 'PA – UIPA & UCSP' Category

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.)

INSURED ADEQUATELY PLEADED UNREASONABLE DENIAL/DELAY, BUT NOT KNOWLEDGE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD; UIPA/UCSP NOT BASIS FOR BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insurer successfully moved to dismiss a UIM bad faith claim. While the plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to show the insurer’s conduct was unreasonable, plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that the insurer’s conduct was knowing or reckless.

Factual Background

The complaint alleged that after settling with the tortfeasor, the insured demanded UIM policy limits from her own carrier. The demand was in writing, accompanied by medical documents, and requested a response in 30 days. There was no response in 30 days, and the insured sent another demand on the 32nd day, and again a month after that.  The carrier’s adjuster responded to the third demand, on the day it was sent, that the carrier did not agree with plaintiff’s valuation of her injuries. On that same day, the insured also requested a copy of the policy, which the carrier initially refused to provide, but eventually sent almost six weeks later. The Insured made more requests for documents she alleges were relevant, but received no response.

She pleads she was never provided “with (1) a written explanation for the delay in investigating her UIM claim, (2) any indication of when a decision on the claim might be reached, or (3) any written explanation on the status of her claim.” Instead, over six months after her original demand, the insurer made a written demand to arbitrate the UIM claim.

Thus, the only two communications in the six-month period were to dispute valuation and demand arbitration.

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith. The carrier moved to arbitrate the UIM claim, and to dismiss the bad faith claim. The court granted the motion to arbitrate, and stayed the insured’s coverage claim pending arbitration.  It dismissed the bad faith claim.

Alleged Bases for Bad Faith

The insured alleged seven bases for her bad faith claim:

  1. “failing to promptly and reasonably determine the applicability of benefits;”

  2. “failing to pay benefits or settle her UIM claim;”

  3. “unreasonably delaying payment;”

  4. “failing to provide a copy of the … Policy when requested;”

  5. “failing to respond to multiple attempts at communication;”

  6. “unreasonably delaying evaluation of her claim;” and

  7. “violating the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (“UIPA”), 40 P.S. § 1171.1 et seq., and the Unfair Claims Settlement Practice (“UCSP”) Guidelines, 31 Pa. Code § 146.1 et seq., by failing to complete claim investigation within thirty days or, if unreasonable, to provide a written explanation and an expected date of completion every forty-five days thereafter.”

Bad Faith Standards and First Element of Bad Faith

The court observed two factors are needed to prove bad faith, as approved in Rancosky: the insured must show “(1) the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Judge Quiñones Alejandro stated that the first element covers a range of insurer conduct, such as “an insurer’s lack of good faith investigation or failure to communicate with the claimant regarding UIM claims[, … or] where the insurer delayed in handling the insured’s claim.”

The insured pleaded enough to support a plausible claim for unreasonable conduct in denying the claim. She “alleged that during the nearly six months between Plaintiff initially filing her UIM claim and [the insurer] making a written arbitration demand, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to communicate … on at least five separate occasions for any update on the status of Plaintiff’s claim.” The insurer only responded once to dispute valuation and then three months later to demand arbitration.  This was enough to make out a claim for “unreasonable delay to investigate and settle Plaintiff’s claim.”

Second Element of Bad Faith Not Met

Proving knowledge or reckless disregard goes beyond mere negligence or poor judgment. Pleading “the mere existence of the delay itself is insufficient.” “Rather, a court must look to facts from which it can infer the defendant insurer ‘knew it had no reason to deny a claim; if [the] delay is attributable to the need to investigate further or even simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred.’” “In cases involving delay or failure to investigate or communicate, courts have found the length of the delay relevant to an inference of knowledge or reckless disregard.” Judge Quiñones Alejandro cited examples of cases with more than one and two year investigation delays.

She went on to find the insured did not plead a plausible claim of knowing or reckless disregard in denying or delaying payment. “In bad faith cases premised on an insurer’s delay and failure to communicate, courts have generally only inferred plausible knowledge or reckless disregard where the time periods of delay were much longer than six months.” She cites the Superior Court’s Grossi decision (one year delay), and Judge Leeson’s January 2020 Solano-Sanchez decision (two year delay) as other examples.

By contrast, “[h]ere, the time lapse before [the insurer] acted on Plaintiff’s claim by seeking arbitration was roughly six months. Further, nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint attributes this time period to [the insurer’s knowledge or reckless disregard of a reasonable basis for denying (or delaying) the claim, as opposed to ‘mere negligence’ or even an actual need to investigate. Without a longer delay more consistent with the delays established in the aforementioned precedent, or other factual allegations from which this Court could infer that Travelers acted with knowledge or reckless disregard of the unreasonableness of its actions, Plaintiff has not pled facts sufficient to plausibly allege the second element of her bad faith claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s bad faith claim is dismissed.”

UIPA or UCSP Violations Cannot Form Basis for Bad Faith Claims

In addressing the bad faith claims, the Court observed, “alleged violations of the UIPA or UCSP cannot per se establish bad faith and have not been considered by Third Circuit courts.” Judge Quiñones Alejandro cites the Third Circuit’s decisions in Leach (“holding that ‘insofar as [plaintiff’s] claim for bad faith was based upon an alleged violation of the UIPA, it failed as a matter of law.’”), and Dinner v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n Cas. Ins. Co., 29 F. App’x 823, 827 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that alleged UIPA or UCSP violations are not relevant in evaluating bad faith claims), as well as the Eastern District decision in Watson (“observing that, since the current bad faith standard was established in Terletsky, ‘courts in the [Third] circuit have … refused to consider UIPA violations as evidence of bad faith.’).”

Date of Decision: December 7, 2020

White v. Travelers Ins. Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. CV 20-2928, 2020 WL 7181217 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2020) (Quiñones Alejandro, J.)

SIMPLY DENYING CLAIM OR REFUSING TO PRODUCE UNDERWRITING FILE NOT BAD FAITH; UIPA VIOLATIONS MUST BE A REGULAR BUSINESS PRACTICE TO BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This UIM bad faith opinion includes instructive points on factual allegations that only create possible, but not plausible, claims and on the use of alleged Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) violations as evidence. The opinion also includes the more common observations admonishing against conclusory pleading.

The bad faith claims in this case concern alleged misrepresentations of UIM coverage in connection with stacking, a refusal to provide the underwriting file, and a claim that the insurer forced the insured to file suit just to obtain documents. The court dismissed the bad faith claims, but with leave to amend.

ADEQUATE PLEADING STANDARDS

As with many other cases issuing out of the Eastern District this year, the court made clear that conclusory allegations are given no regard in supporting a bad faith pleading. Like many of those courts, Judge Baylson cited the Third Circuit’s Smith opinion on this point, as well as his own opinions in Eley and Robbins.

There were three factual allegations that went beyond mere conclusory pleading, though still not adequate to state a claim because they only made bad faith possible, not plausible.

Refusal to Pay Not Enough

  1. “Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim for UIM stacking of benefits for five vehicles….” As to this allegation, Judge Baylson found that “a plaintiff cannot base a bad faith claim on the defendant’s refusal to pay. A disagreement over the amount of a UIM claim is not unusual, and the existence of such disagreement cannot by itself state a viable bad faith claim.” He relied on Johnson v. Progressive Ins. Co., for the proposition that “[t]he underlying facts involve nothing more than a normal dispute between an insured and insurer over the value of an UIM claim. The scenario under consideration occurs routinely in the processing of an insurance claim.”

Refusal to Turn Over Underwriting File

  1. “Defendant refused to provide the underwriting file upon request….” Judge Baylson found the insurer’s alleged “refusal to provide the underwriting document is comparable to the allegation of parallel conduct in Twombly, which ‘gets the complaint close to stating a claim, but without some further factual enhancement it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” He added that “[i]n insurance coverage disputes, underwriting files often contain an insurer’s evaluation of the risks presented on an insurance application, along with other confidential business information. Although a showing of Defendant’s refusal to disclose the underwriting file may be consistent with bad faith, it is also as much in line with ‘a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy.’”

Don’t Make the Court Speculate that an Alleged Fact Might Possibly be Bad Faith

       3. “Defendant required Plaintiff to file a lawsuit in order to obtain the documents that will confirm the coverage.” Although not addressed separately, this allegation fell under the general concept the court will not infer bad faith because a possibility of bad faith exists. Rather, the factual allegations must stand by themselves as a plausible basis for a bad faith claim. Plausibility means the court does not have to speculate on what the allegation might imply.

UIPA Violations Must Show the Actions at Issue Occurred on a Regular Basis as a General Business Practice

The insured argued that he should be allowed to use UIPA violations as evidence of bad faith. The carrier countered that UIPA violations might only be evidence of bad faith “when the actions in question were a general business practice,” and the insured did not make any allegations to this effect. Judge Baylson found the complaint was devoid of specific factual allegations concerning putative UIPA violations.

Judge Baylson stated that “31 Pa. Code § 146.1 (1978) provides that such violations ‘will be deemed to constitute unfair claims settlement practices’ if they occur with “a frequency that indicates a general business practice.’” Judge Baylson relied on his 2017 Jack decision, to support his conclusion that the insured “pleaded no factual allegations showing that Defendant’s actions occur on a regular basis that constitutes a general business practice.”

Date of Decision: June 22, 2020

Dietz v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania No. 2:20-cv-1239-MMB, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108559 (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2020) (Baylson, J.)

(1) FAILURE TO MAKE PARTIAL PAYMENT NOT BAD FAITH; (2) BAD FAITH POSSIBLE WHERE INSURER ALLEGEDLY KNEW CLAIM WAS WORTH MORE THAN ITS OFFER, AND THAT IT FAILED TO RE-EVALUATE THE CLAIM AFTER RECEIVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Western District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The insureds’ complaint alleged husband-insured was riding a bicycle when hit by the tortfeasor’s car. The driver’s carrier offered to pay $50,000 towards the injuries, but the complaint alleged this was insufficient in light of the severity of the injuries, and the insureds sought UIM coverage from a set of insurers (though we will treat the claim as against one carrier for purposes of this post). The insureds allege they had $250,000 in UIM coverage, per person, and that both insureds were entitled to coverage.

They also allege they made demand on their UIM carrier. The demand package included information as to liability and damages, and was allegedly provided to a UIM adjuster. The package included the $50,000 offer from the tortfeasor’s carrier. The UIM adjuster made an “initial offer” of $10,000. The complaint alleges the adjuster was aware when making the $10,000 offer that the UIM part of the claim was worth “at least $10,000.00” and that Plaintiffs were unable to respond to this initial offer because Plaintiff [husband] was still receiving medical treatment.”

The complaint alleges that after the initial demand and response, plaintiffs’ counsel provided medical records and lien information addressing the husband’s injuries, condition, treatment and prognosis. Counsel also provided various written and oral demands on the carrier to tender UIM benefits. The demands exceeded $10,000 generally, but at some point did include a request for partial payment of the $10,000. Plaintiffs allege the carrier originally refused to pay the $10,000, but later paid that $10,000 without making any additional offers or payments “despite concluding that the value of the UIM claim exceeded this amount [$10,000].”

The insureds brought breach of contract claims, and a bad faith claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371. The complaint also references the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), 40 P.S. § 1171.5. The carrier moved to dismiss the bad faith claims as well as any claims based on the UIPA.

Three counts alleged identical language for bad faith claims handling, e.g. the complaint included subparagraphs alleging failure “to evaluate and re-evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim on a timely basis, failing to offer a reasonable payment to Plaintiffs, failing to effectuate an equitable settlement of Plaintiffs’ claim, failing to reasonably investigate Plaintiffs’ claim and engaging in ‘dilatory and abusive’ claims handling.”

In opposing the motion to dismiss the claims, the insureds argued that the “bad faith stems from [the insurer’s] untimely and unreasonable offer … failure to properly investigate the claim; and initially refusing to make the partial payment Plaintiffs requested from the adjustor.” The insureds asserted “that upon receipt and review of the settlement package and documentation provided, Defendants recognized that [husband’s] injuries were far in excess of $60,000 (the $50,000 limits paid by [the driver’s] insurance carrier, plus the $10,000 offered by Defendants).” They also argued bad faith because the carrier initially refused to make the partial $10,000 payment, and, for ultimately offering a minimal sum in an untimely manner while knowing the claim was worth far more than the $10,000 offer.

Refusing to Make Partial Payment Not Bad Faith

The court cited Third Circuit precedent for the proposition that “if Pennsylvania were to recognize a cause of action for bad faith for an insurance company’s refusal to pay unconditionally the undisputed amount of a UIM claim, it would do so only 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.” Pennsylvania Superior Court case law also required that a bad faith plaintiff plead that both parties agreed that the partial valuation was an undisputed amount.

In this case, the plaintiffs did not plead that the insureds requested an assessment of a part of their claim and were denied that assessment. Nor did they allege that “the parties had undertaken a partial valuation and agreed that the amount of $10,000 was an undisputed amount of benefits owed.” All they allege is the insurer made an initial offer, and the insureds initially declined that offer and later requested it be paid. The court found that an “’initial offer’ indicates that an insurer is willing to negotiate, and does not in itself represent evidence of bad faith,” citing Judge Flowers Conti’s 2013 Katta decision. Thus, “to the extent that Plaintiffs attempt to assert that the failure by Defendants to make a more timely partial payment represents bad faith, any such claim fails as a matter of law.”

The Bad Faith Claim Survived on Factual Allegations that the Insurer Knew the Claim was Worth More than it Offered, and the Insurer Failed to Re-evaluate the Claim after Receiving Additional Information

Taking the factual allegations in the complaint in plaintiffs’ favor, the court would not dismiss the bad faith claims. The insureds alleged that the carrier knew and was aware the claim value exceed $60,000 (the tortfeasor payment plus the $10,000 offer). From the subsequent $10,000 partial payment, the court had to infer on the pleadings that the carrier had concluded the claim was worth more than $10,000, and had therefore “refused to effectuate an equitable settlement.” The court stated that “[w]hile this may or may not ultimately support a bad faith claim, it is sufficient for now to defeat Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

Further, the complaint alleges that the carrier refused to do additional investigation or re-evaluate the claim even after receiving additional information from counsel about the insured’s injuries. The insurer argued on the motion to dismiss this conduct was reasonable because there was an “understanding” with the insureds that negotiations would be put on hold pending the husband’s medical treatment. The court could not consider this argument, however, as it relied on facts and a defense outside the pleadings. Rather, it could only consider the allegations that there was a lack of good faith investigation into the facts, and the insurer failed to re-evaluate the claim even after receiving new information that merited re-evaluation.

Finally, the insureds confirmed to the court they were not asserting any claims under the UIPA, and that UIPA references in the complaint could be stricken.

Date of Decision: May 4, 2020

Kleinz v. Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance Co., U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 2:19-CV-01426-PLD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78400 (W.D. Pa. May 4, 2020) (Dodge, M.J.)

 

NO BAD FAITH WHERE NO BENEFITS DENIED; NO PRIVATE ACTION UNDER UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS; NO DECEPTIVE CONDUCT IN NOTICE OF NEW ENDORSEMENT (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In this case, the court makes clear that “Bad faith claims cover a range of conduct relating to the improper denial of benefits under the applicable contract.” The court quotes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 20, 928 A.2d 186, 199 (Pa. 2007), to highlight the point that statutory bad faith claims must relate to a denial of benefits: “’In other words, the term [bad faith] captured those actions an insurer took when called upon to perform its contractual obligations of defense and indemnification or payment of a loss that failed to satisfy the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in the parties’ insurance contract.’”

This first party property damage case centered on a policy endorsement changing the scope of coverage for access work done to repair leakage.

In 2015, the insureds had a homeowners policy with the carrier. In August 2015, while the policy was in effect, the carrier provided the insureds with notice of a new endorsement that would take effect on September 27, 2015. The notice stated that the new endorsement would potentially reduce coverage, and that “[a]lthough not intended to change coverage, this change could potentially reduce or eliminate coverage depending on how it is interpreted and, in that regard, should be viewed as either an actual or potential reduction in or elimination of coverage.”

The insureds renewed their homeowners policies in the ensuing years, apparently without ever questioning this endorsement. The property damage at issue occurred in September 2018, when the insured homeowners had their plumber do certain repair work to fix a leak, including access work to get to damaged plumbing. The insureds allege that the carrier improperly refused to pay the full bill for the access work, while the carrier relied on the 2015 endorsement in justifying its lower than hoped for payment.

The homeowners brought individual and class action counts, seeking declaratory relief, as well as claims for breach of contract, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulations (UCSP), and for statutory bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss all claims.

Declaratory judgment and contract claims dismissed without prejudice

The insureds argued the 2015 endorsement was unconscionable and should be rendered void; but even if enforceable, it still required greater payment than the carrier made for the cost of the access work. The court, however, dismissed the declaratory judgment claim and breach of contract claim on these grounds, but without prejudice if plaintiffs could plead additional facts to support these claims.

Bad faith claim dismissed without prejudice

The essence of the insureds’ bad faith claims is that the notice accompanying the 2015 endorsement promised greater coverage, but gave less coverage. The court found this could not state a bad faith claim because these claims did not involve the denial of a benefit. “Section 8371 encompasses a variety of insurer conduct, but such conduct must be related to the denial of benefits.” Though “’the alleged bad faith need not be limited to the literal act of denying a claim, the essence of a bad faith claim must be the unreasonable and intentional (or reckless) denial of benefits.’”

In this case the “Plaintiffs’ allegations do not relate to the denial of coverage of the access bill, they relate to the Endorsement notice’s language and how Defendant engaged in alleged misrepresentation because of the purportedly confusing notice.” A “claim that the drafting of policy language was in bad faith is not actionable under Pennsylvania law….” In making this point, the court relied on Mitch’s Auto Service Center, Inc. v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. As stated above, it relied on Toy v. Metropolitan Life for the fundamental point that statutory bad faith claims must include the denial of a benefit.

The court also specifically observed the complaint was “devoid of any facts indicating Defendant lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy.” Likewise, there were no plausible allegations that the insurer “knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis.” The insureds argued that the 2015 notice language could be the basis of a bad faith claim. The court failed to see, however, “how that notice, provided to Plaintiffs three years prior to the water damage here, shows that Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded its alleged lack of reasonable basis in denying Plaintiffs’ entire costs for the plumber’s access bill.”

Still, the court dismissed without prejudice if the insureds could replead a plausible bad faith claim.

UIPA and UCSP regulations claims dismissed with prejudice

The insureds conceded that there is no private cause of action under Pennsylvania’s UIPA, 40 P.S. § 1171.1, or UCSPR, 31 Pa. Code §§ 146.1. The court cited Leach v. Northwestern Mut. Ins. Co., 262 F. App’x 455 (3d Cir. 2008), Swan Caterers, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 12-0024, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162305, 2012 WL 5508371 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2012) and Connolly v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., No. 03-5444, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83440, 2006 WL 3355184 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2006) for the proposition that there is no private cause of action under the UIPA or UCSP regulations, and the statute and regulations can only be enforced by the insurance commissioner.

UTPCPL claim dismissed without prejudice

The court dismissed the UTPCPL claim without prejudice, finding the 2015 notice did not constitute a deceptive act, because “the notice’s language explicitly states that the policyholder should treat the change as a reduction in coverage.” The court further found justifiable reliance was not pleaded, as there were no allegations that the insureds relied on any alleged misconduct causing them to purchase the policy.

Dates of Decision: March 27, 2020 (Report and Recommendation) and April 22, 2020 (District Court Order)

Velazquez v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-cv-3128, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55854 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2020) (Sitarski, M.J.) (Report and Recommendation), approved and adopted by the District Court (April 22, 2020) (Quiñones Alejandro, J.)

 

NO BAD FAITH: (1) NO BENEFIT DUE; (2) NO ESTOPPEL UNDER THE UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS; (3) AN OVERSIGHT CAUSING DELAY IS NOT BAD FAITH (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The court described this as the case of the missing email. The insurance policy at issue covered various cars. The insured emailed its broker to add another vehicle to the policy. The broker claims it never got the email, and thus never asked the insurer to issue an endorsement adding the new car to the policy. As things sometimes go in life, the new car was involved in a collision, damaging another vehicle as well as its own new car.

The insured reported the claim. However, the insured identified its vehicle as one of existing cars listed in the policy, rather than the new unlisted vehicle. The insurer accepted coverage, and even paid damages to the other driver. The insurer later reversed itself on coverage once its appraiser determined the insured’s vehicle was not the car identified in the claim form, and was not covered under the policy.

The police report did list the correct vehicle. The insurer had the police report at the time it initially provided coverage, and only reversed itself when its appraiser realized that the damaged car was not the car on the claim form and was not listed in the policy.

The insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith, among other claims against the insurer as well as the broker. The insurer moved for summary judgment, which the court granted.

There is no breach of contract, or estoppel under the UIPA or UCSP regulations

First, there was no breach of contract, as the vehicle at issue never became part of the policy. The insured argued, however, that the insured was estopped from denying coverage under the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) and the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UCSP) regulations governing “Standards for prompt, fair and equitable settlements applicable to insurers”. The insured relied on 31 Pa. Code § 146.7(a)(1), which states that, “Within 15 working days after receipt by the insurer of properly executed proofs of loss, the first-party claimant shall be advised of the acceptance or denial of the claim by the insurer.”

Judge Wolson rejected the statutory/regulatory argument for three reasons:

  1. There is no private right of action under the UIPA and UCSP regulations, and only Pennsylvania’s Insurance Commissioner can enforce the UIPA and UCSP regulations.

  2. The policy itself did not incorporate the UIPA or UCSP obligations or impose those obligations on the insurer. “Absent the incorporation of these obligations into the Policy, their potential violation does not breach the Policy.”

  3. The doctrines of waiver or estoppel cannot “create an insurance contract where none existed.”

THERE IS NO BAD FAITH

  1. The broker is not an insurer subject to the bad faith statute

First, the court recognized that there was no sustainable statutory bad faith action against the broker because it was not an insurer.

  1. There is no bad faith where no benefit is denied

Next, as to the insurer, “To prevail on a bad faith claim, a plaintiff must present clear and convincing evidence that, among other things, an insurer ‘did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy’ or that an insurer committed a ‘frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay proceeds of a policy.’” Because the insurer had no contractual obligation to pay its refusal could not have been unreasonable, and the claim failed.

  1. The UIPA and UCSP regulations do no prevent changing a coverage decision based on new information

The court rejected another argument based on the UIPA and UCSP regulations cited above. The insured argued the failure to pay was unreasonable once the insurer accepted coverage. The court found, however, the UCSP regulations did not “prevent an insurer from changing a coverage determination based on new information.”

More importantly to the court, the insured adduced no case law adding such a gloss to section 146.7, i.e. a mandate that once coverage was accepted it could never be denied under any circumstances. Thus, it was reasonable for the insurer to interpret that regulation to permit an insurer to revise a coverage decision based on new information.

  1. A Delay based on an Oversight is not the Basis for Bad Faith

Finally, any delay in revising its coverage determination was likewise not bad faith. Citing the 2007 DeWalt decision, the court observed that an “insurer’s actions in allegedly delaying investigation did not constitute bad faith under Pennsylvania law [when] there was no evidence that such delay was deliberate or knowing, or was unreasonable.”

While the carrier “probably could have been more diligent” in determining which vehicle was involved in the collision by looking at the police report earlier, “an insurer ‘need not show that the process used to reach its conclusion was flawless or that its investigatory methods eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusion.’” There was nothing in the record to establish the insurer “acted with reckless disregard of its obligations or otherwise fell so short that it acted in bad faith.”

Date of Decision: April 1, 2020

Live Face on Web, LLC v. Merchants Insurance Group, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 2:19-cv-00528-JDW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56852 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2020) (Wolson, J.)

Our thanks to attorney Daniel Cummins of the excellent Tort Talk Blog for bringing this case to our attention.  We also note the Tort Talk Blog’s three recent posts on post-Koken motions to sever and stay bad faith claims in the Western District, York County, and Lancaster County.

NO BAD FAITH POSSIBLE WHERE INSURER HAS ANY REASONABLE BASIS FOR ITS CONDUCT; UIPA AND UCSP REGULATIONS DO NOT CREATE BASIS FOR BAD FAITH CLAIMS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This UIM bad faith claim involved allegations of delayed investigation and settlement payment. The insurer moved for summary judgment, which Eastern District Judge Robreno granted.

The court observed that any reasonable basis to deny coverage defeats a bad faith claim, and consultation with counsel can establish a reasonable basis for the insurer’s actions. Negligence or poor judgment do not make out a bad faith case. Further, “[a]n insurer who investigates legitimate questions of insurance coverage is not acting in bad faith, and no insurer is required ‘to submerge its own interest in order that the insured’s interests may be made paramount.’”

Moreover, although bad faith can be proven through unreasonable delays in paying on a claim, “’a long period of time between demand and settlement does not, on its own, necessarily constitute bad faith.’” For example, if the insurer’s delay is tied to its need for further investigation, this is not bad faith.

Judge Robreno’s opinion sets forth a meticulous recitation of the factual history. The key factual issues were the length of time in reaching a settlement and the investigation into what portion of the insured’s injuries were attributable to the accident at issue vs. a separate auto accident in the preceding year.

In analyzing these facts, the court observed that the insureds’ principal argument was that the insurer took 15 months to make a settlement offer. However, the court found this was “not a per se violation of § 8371, and courts have found no bad faith in cases where insurers took the same length of time to evaluate a claim.” (Emphasis in original)

Drilling down with specific calendar calculations by relevant event, Judge Robreno found the length of time attributable to the insurer’s own delay was around 9 months. This was only half of the nearly 18-month period between the first petition to open a UIM file and filing suit. Further, during its investigation, the insurer had “repeatedly asked … for additional medical documentation, repeatedly communicated with Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and provided updates on the progress of the investigation. In the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, no reasonable jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant lacked any reasonable basis in its investigation.” (Emphasis in original)

UIPA and UCSP regulations not a basis for bad faith here

In a closing footnote Judge Robreno rejects the insureds’ effort to create a claim from the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) or Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UCSP) regulations.

He states, “While recognizing that they do not provide private causes of action, Plaintiff also cites to the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act, 40 Pa. C.S. § 1171, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulations, 31 Pa. Code § 146, which each require prompt and reasonable responses from insurers in response to a claim, as further evidence of Defendant’s bad faith conduct. … However, ‘a violation of the UIPA or UCSP is not a per se violation of the bad faith standard.’ …. Further, both statutes apply to behavior performed with such recurrence as to signify a general business practice. See 31 Pa. Code § 146.1; 40 Pa. C.S. § 1171.5(a)(10). Because Plaintiffs only identify an isolated instance of Defendant’s alleged bad faith conduct in their argument that Defendant violated both statutes, neither is persuasive in showing Defendant lacked any reasonable basis in delaying Plaintiffs’ claim.” (Emphasis in original)

Date of Decision: March 19, 2020

Bernstein v. Geico Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-1899, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47798 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2020) (Robreno, J.)

 

THERE IS NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE UIPA OR UCSP REGULATIONS (Philadelphia Federal)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Last week, we summarized Judge Jones decision in this case regarding whether the insured adequately pleaded bad faith. In this post, we address his ruling on whether violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices (UCSP) regulations and Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) can state a private cause of action.

Judge Jones found the applicable case law clear that there is no private right of action under the UIPA or UCSP regulations. Rather, these laws and regulations can only be enforced by the insurance commissioner.

The court cites numerous opinions supporting this conclusion, including, e.g., the Third Circuit’s Leach opinion, Judge Dalzell’s opinion in Upper Pottsgrove v. International Fidelity, Judge Tucker’s decision in Weinberg v. Nationwide, and Judge Kosik’s decision in Oehlhmann v. Metropolitan Life, among the many cases cited.

The court did appear to recognize, however, that under some circumstances a bad faith claim could be premised on a UIPA or UCSP violation, citing Judge Conaboy’s Aldsworth decision, and Judge Rambo’s 2014 Militello decision.

[Note:  Last May, we posted a breakdown of how various courts have addressed the extent of the relationship between the UIPA and UCSP regulations and statutory bad faith claims.]

Finally, the court dismissed the insured’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim, solely under the economic loss doctrine.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2020

Clapps v. State Farm Insurance Cos., U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-3745, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47800 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2020) (Jones II, J.)

 

COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FINDS BAD FAITH FOR (1) RELYING ON UNWARRANTED RED FLAGS; (2) REACHING COVERAGE CONCLUSIONS UNSUPPORTED BY ACTUAL FACTS; (3) UNREASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF POLICY’S COVERAGE LANGUAGE; (4) DRAWING UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERT REPORT; (5) FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FULLY; (6) VIOLATING UIPA (Common Pleas Lehigh)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Today’s post summarizes Lehigh County Judge Melissa Pavlack’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this breach of contract and bad faith case.

The Court’s Factual Findings

The insureds’ car was stolen. It was recovered, but with considerable damage. The insureds’ license plate was replaced with a stolen plate. The court found that the thieves never intended to return the vehicle. The insureds sought coverage based on the theft and vandalism, relying on policy language covering theft, larceny, vandalism, and malicious mischief.

The court found the insureds were not involved in any way with the theft or vandalism, nor was there any fraud on their part. The car was deemed a total loss, and valued at around $13,000. There were additional costs for hauling and storage, bringing the total claim to approximately $17,000.

The insurer denied the claim, citing insufficient evidence the car had been stolen. It refused to consider a separate vandalism claim because the damages arose out of an alleged theft. Thus, the insurer did not investigate the vandalism claim, and the denial letter never addressed the vandalism claim’s merits. The insurer never cited any policy exclusions applying to the vandalism claims. There was also no denial based on fraud.

The insurer’s investigation included a claim’s adjuster and supervisor, a fraud investigator, an appraiser, an appraisal report, an investigator and three investigator reports, an examination under oath over the telephone and in person, document requests, and a site visit to the loss location. At trial, the adjuster could not recall which of the insured’s statements under oath led to the claim denial.

The investigator reported to the carrier that one of the insureds was uncooperative because she did not bring unredacted tax returns and cell phone records to her examination under oath. Relying on this alleged lack of cooperation, the claims supervisor wrote to the insured that she had failed to cooperate by not bringing these tax returns and records, and failed to cooperate with the insurer’s investigation. However, the investigator was not aware that another of the insurer’s representatives had actually instructed the insured to bring redacted copies of the tax returns to the examination under oath, which she did.

As to other document issues allegedly evidencing a failure to cooperate, it was made clear during the examination under oath that the insured was a medical professional. She could not simply produce her phone records without violating HIPAA. She attempted to cooperate during the examination under oath by showing some messages in her phone from the days in question; but the adjuster was also concerned about HIPAA, and was hesitant to proceed with looking at her phone. Further, the court found the insured could not respond to the insurer’s request for the car purchase documents because these had been stolen from the glove compartment.

Moreover, in contrast to assertions that the insureds failed to cooperate, the court found that the insurer’s fraud investigator conceded the insureds had cooperated, and had provided documents requested in the manner requested.

As to the allegation there was insufficient evidence of theft, the insurer relied upon its expert report. The expert opined there was no forced entry, and that the car only could have been moved using a key. The court found (1) the insurance policy did not require forced entry as a condition precedent to establish theft, and (2) the car could be moved without a key. Further, the insurer’s fraud investigator testified that cars can be stolen without noticeable signs of forced entry, and there was other testimony to the same effect. The court also found that the fraud investigator never communicated with the claim adjuster that forced entry was not required to steal a car.

In sum, the court found these conclusions (forced entry and use of a key) were not reasonable bases to deny the very existence of a theft.

Most significantly, the expert only opined the car was not stolen by means of forced entry, and that a key had to have been used. Whether or not these conclusions were correct was irrelevant in the court’s view, because the expert never opined the car was not stolen. Thus, it was an error to make the leap that the car was not stolen, as it could have been stolen by some means other than forced entry, or could have been moved without a key.

There was Coverage for Theft, Vandalism, and Malicious Mischief

In addressing the breach of contract claim, the court looked at the policy’s plain language. The policy expressly covered theft, larceny, vandalism, and malicious mischief. There were no applicable exclusions in this case, so the court only had to interpret the coverage language.

The court looked at the dictionary definition of these terms, rather than any criminal statutes or case law defining vandalism, theft, etc. It concluded the facts of the case fell within these coverage terms, and the insureds claims were covered. As to bad faith, it was unreasonable to conclude the facts at hand did not fall within the policy’s plain and unambiguous language. Further, the court found the insurer’s conduct unreasonable in failing to consider coverage for vandalism and malicious mischief when denying the claims.

Court uses Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Regulations as Standards

The court cited (1) Unfair Claim Settlement Practice regulations (UCSP), 31 Pa. Code § 146.4, on obligations to fully disclose coverages and benefits; and (2) the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), 40 Pa.S.A. § 1171.5(a)(10)(iv), on failing to reasonably explain a claim denial.

The court cited these UCSP and UIPA provisions in the context of the first bad faith prong, lack of a reasonable basis to deny benefits. The court then observed the insurer had completely failed to consider the vandalism and malicious mischief claims covered under the policy. This supported the existence of bad faith, though it is not wholly clear whether the UCSP and UIPA violations were evidence of bad faith conduct, or were bad faith per se.

[We have previously posted on how courts treat alleged violations of UCSP regulations and the UIPA in bad faith cases, ranging from (1) their being completely outside the scope of consideration in determining bad faith, (2) as constituting potential evidence of bad faith, or (3) as amounting to statutory bad faith. It is not quite clear in the present case which of the latter two standards applied. Even without citing the UCSP or UIPA, however, it would seem the court’s finding that the insurer gave no regard to plainly covered vandalism claims was a basis for bad faith, regardless of any UCSP or UIPA violations.]

Erroneous Red Flags

The insurer justified its conduct by identifying certain “red flags” that caused legitimate doubt in the insureds veracity. When scrutinized, however, the court found these red flags were based on factual errors or erroneous assumptions.

  1. The insured was deemed uncooperative for failing to attend a unilaterally scheduled examination under oath. In fact, however, the court found the insured gave sufficient notice she could not attend on that date, and cooperated in rescheduling the examination under oath on another date, at which she appeared. She also had agreed to, and participated in, an examination over the phone.

As to the original date for the in-person examination, the court observed that the insurer knew in advance the insured was not going to appear on the first scheduled date, but still had its representatives appear to make a record against the insured for failing to appear.

  1. The insurer also asserted the insured was uncooperative because she provided redacted tax returns. As stated above, the insurer’s own representative had informed the insured in writing that certain redactions could be made. Further, when the insurer later requested an unredacted return, the insureds provided it.

  2. As to the alleged lack of cooperation on cell phone records, this was fully addressed during the examination under oath. As stated above, the insured was a medical professional and there were certain items on her phone records that could not be produced under HIPAA. That being said, she still offered to let the insurer’s representative look at her cell phone during the examination under oath, regarding non-HIPAA messages from the date the car was stolen. The adjuster was concerned about violating HIPAA, and was hesitant to do so.

  3. The insurer also deemed it a red flag that the loss came shortly after the policy’s purchase. This turned out to be an error. The court found the policy was purchased at least six months earlier. Another suspicion surrounded alleged excessive mileage on the car, which the court found was likewise not factually the case.

Failure to Fully Investigate the Red Flags

The court observed that while the insurer took the insured’s examination under oath, and conducted various investigations based on these alleged red flags, it failed to contact the police. Nor did the insurer follow up on evidence that drugs reportedly were found in the glove compartment. Though not expressly stated in the conclusions of law, this implies that the presence of drugs, under all the facts, favored the idea that strangers had stolen the car for nefarious purposes.

The Insurer Relied on its Expert Report for the Wrong Conclusion

For the court, the coverage issue concerning the insurer’s expert was simple: Was the car stolen? The issue was not: How was the car stolen?

The expert opined on two means by which the car was not stolen. The court found the expert never opined, however, that the car was not stolen. Moreover, the insurer never argued that the insureds faked a theft or lied about it.

The court pointed out that other means could have been used to steal the car, including non-intrusive and non-mechanical means. For example, after the car was recovered it was towed twice. The court found this demonstrated the car could be moved without forced entry and/or without a key.

Thus, the insurer’s reliance on the expert report to deny the fundamental existence of theft was unreasonable. The court found relying on the expert report to reach a conclusion (no theft) on which the report did not render an opinion, amounted to a knowing or reckless unreasonable denial of benefits, i.e. bad faith.

After finding bad faith on all the foregoing grounds, the court stated it would schedule a hearing on attorney’s fees, interest, and punitive damages.

Date of Decision: December 27, 2019

Unterberg v. Mercury Insurance Company of Florida, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Case No. 2016-C-806 (Dec. 27, 2019) (Pavlack, J.)

Thanks to Daniel Cummins of the excellent and extremely useful Tort Talk Blog for bringing this case to our attention.

BAD FAITH NOT ADEQUATELY PLEADED; NO PRIVATE ACTION FOR UIPA VIOLATIONS; ATTORNEY’S FEES NOT AVAILABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM (Middle District)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The court reiterates here that (1) bad faith claims must be pleaded with supporting factual allegations, (2) there is no private cause of action for UIPA or Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulation violations, and (3) attorney’s fees are not recoverable under a breach of contract claim.

This is a UIM case for breach of contract and bad faith, as well as unfair claim settlement practices violations. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim as improperly pleaded. It moved to dismiss the unfair claim settlement count on the basis that the Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA) and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices regulations do not provide for a private cause of action. Finally, the insurer moved to dismiss the attorney’s fee claims in the breach of contract count.

  1. Bare-bones bad faith claims dismissed without prejudice

The court dismissed the bad faith claim, without prejudice, because the insureds only pleaded conclusory bare-bones allegations. The complaint did not include any factual allegations supporting the conclusory pleadings.

These inadequate bare-bones allegations were as follows:

Delay. Even after determining that Plaintiffs had a right to the insurance proceeds claimed, the Defendant has delayed paying Plaintiffs their policy proceeds for unknown reasons.

Forcing Insured to Seek Legal Redress. By delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim, Defendant Progressive Corporation, knowing that it had no legal justification for doing so, purposefully forced Plaintiffs to file this Complaint in order to obtain the insurance proceeds to which they are entitled. Defendant, Progressive Corporation, forced Plaintiffs to seek legal redress for unknown reasons.

Deception. Defendant realizing that it had no legal grounds for denying or delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim, and/or engaged [sic] in deceptive acts relating to Plaintiffs’ policy for the purposes of creating an apparent reason for denying the Plaintiffs’ claim where no such reason existed.

False Accusations. Defendant realizing that it had no legal grounds for denying or delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim, made false statements to the Plaintiffs’ representatives and/or other persons for the purposes of creating an apparent reason for denying the Plaintiffs’ claim where no such reason existed.

Oppressive Demands. In the course of adjusting Plaintiffs’ claim, Defendant made oppressive demands of the Plaintiffs for the purposes of delaying payment of Plaintiffs’ claim.

The court looked to the following decisions in supporting this result: Myers, Peters, Sowinski, Moran, and Grustas.

  1. There is no private cause of action under the UIPA or under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Regulations

The insureds relied upon the Supreme Court’s 1981 D’Ambrosio decision in asserting causes of action for UIPA and Unfair Claim Settlement Practices violations. They contended the Supreme Court’s 2017 Rancosky decision superseded D’Ambrosio, and created these private causes of action. The court rejected this argument, observing that Rancosky simply observed that the 1989 bad faith statute superseded D’Ambrosio to the extent it created a new statutory bad faith cause of action years after D’Ambrosio was decided. Rancosky, however, still recognized D’Ambrosio’s holding there is no private UIPA cause of action.

The insurer “therefore did not err in relying on D’Ambrosio for the proposition that there is no private cause of action under UIPA. It remains the case that neither UIPA nor the regulations governing unfair claim settlement practices allow a plaintiff to bring a private cause of action.” The “unfair claim settlement practices claim will accordingly be dismissed with prejudice because there is no private cause of action for unfair claim settlement practices under Pennsylvania law.”

The court looked to the recent Excel and Neri cases in reaching this decision.

3. Attorney’s fees cannot be recovered under a breach of contract theory

Litigants are responsible for their own attorney’s fees and legal costs absent a statute authorizing fees, a contractual provision for fees, or some other recognized exception to the general rule. None of these circumstances applied to the insureds’ breach of contract claim. The court rejected the argument that fees were allowed because attorney’s fees may be permitted during the pendency of litigation for dilatory, obdurate, vexatious or bad faith conduct in the course of litigation. This was irrelevant as neither party filed a sanctions motion, and such behavior was not part of the actual case pleaded.

Date of Decision: December 17, 2019

Kline v. Progressive Corp., U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania Civil No. 1:19-CV-00676, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216258 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2019) (Wilson, J.)