NOVEMBER 2017 BAD FAITH: WHERE NO COVERAGE IS DUE THERE CAN BE NO BAD FAITH EXCEPT IN RARE CASES (Western District)
After extensive analysis of coverage exclusions in a CGL policy relating to auto use, mobile equipment and loading/unloading, the court concluded no coverage was due. It the found: “As the Court has determined that [the insurer] had no duty to defend and no duty to indemnify … under the express language of the Policy, it likewise must conclude that [the insurer] did not act in bad faith in denying coverage and not providing him a defense.” In so holding the court cited Third Circuit precedent in observing, “it is a ‘rare’ case in which an insurer is liable for bad faith when there is no duty to provide coverage.”
Date of Decision: October 27, 2017
Marks v. Utica First Ins. Co., U. S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 16-1671, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178036 (W.D.Pa. Oct. 27, 2017) (Fischer, J.)
