The insured sustained injuries in an auto accident while making deliveries within the scope of his employment. He submitted a UIM claim to his employer’s insurer. A fourteen-month period then elapsed and the claim was unresolved. After refusing initial settlement offers, the insured commenced the litigation.
After an earlier unsuccessful motion to dismiss, the insurer moved for judgment on the pleadings on the bad faith claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that its filed Answer to the Amended Complaint with attached exhibits (email correspondence between the parties) compels a finding that there is no viable bad faith claim. The Court denied the motion, and stated “the operative facts here are no different than they were when the sufficiency of the bad faith claims was determined [on the motion to dismiss].” The Court reasoned that the correspondence did eliminate the plausible nature of the bad faith claims pleaded.
Date of Decision: April 20, 2018
Meyers v. Protective Insurance Company, United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 16-01821 (ARC), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66724 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 2018) (Caputo, J.)