WESTERN DISTRICT JUDGE STICKMAN ISSUES TWO BAD FAITH OPINIONS: (1) DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION ALONE IS NOT BAD FAITH; (2) BAD FAITH CANNOT BE PURSUED AGAINST CARRIER’S CLAIM ADJUSTER (Western District)
On July 19th, Judge Stickman held in Stegena v. Nationwide, that simply pleading the insured’s injuries are worth significantly more than the carrier’s valuation of the same injuries cannot, by itself, constitute bad faith. One week later, Judge Stickman opined in the Alexander v. Mid-Century, that an insured could not bring breach of contract or bad faith claims against a carrier’s claim adjuster.
Valuation dispute alone cannot constitute bad faith
In this undersinsured motorist breach of contract and bad faith case, the insured’s “argument in support of her statutory bad faith claim consists almost entirely of nothing more than a bare recitation of the materials and evidence submitted in support of her claim, together with monetary valuations included in the opinions of experts procured after the initiation of this litigation….”
Judge Stickman found the complaint alleged a claim handling history that did not make out a plausible bad faith claim, with the insured trying to meet her clear and convincing evidence burden by simply emphasizing the amount of damages her experts found due to compensate her damages, which the carrier would not pay. Judge Stickman states: “The problem with [the insured’s] argument is that, although she provides sizeable dollar amounts, which her experts claim represent prospective lost wages and medical expenses, her argument fails to address the present issues before the Court—why there was an absence of a reasonable basis, or how [the insurer] knew or recklessly disregarded that absence.”
He recognizes that “under the right circumstances, an unsupported low-ball offer may support a claim for insurance bad faith … [but] it remains [the insured’s] burden to scrutinize the relationship between [the insurer’s] considerations and determinations.” Here, the insured’s failure to “identify, with any specificity, factual deficiencies illustrating the unreasonableness of [the insurer’s] conduct, demonstrates that her claim is more properly characterized as an inappropriate, generalized grievance over the monetary valuation of her claim.” Moreover, the record showed the carrier’s “investigation and determinations, and, more specifically, the process that he used to evaluate and value the claim … cannot be characterized as anything other than reasonable, as that term applies in the bad faith context.”
Judge Stickman cites Judge Caputo’s 2019 Moran decision in support, summarized here, where the Middle District court collected cases on valuation discrepancies and bad faith.
Finally, in reciting case law detailing Pennsylvania’s statutory bad faith standards, we observe that Judge Stickman quoted the long-standing principle that “an insurance company is not required to demonstrate its investigation yielded the correct conclusion or even that its conclusion more likely than not was accurate. The insurance company also is not required to show the process by which it reached its conclusion was flawless or that the investigatory methods it employed eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusion. Rather, an insurance company simply must show it conducted a review or investigation sufficiently thorough to yield a reasonable foundation for its action.”
No viable breach of contract or bad faith claim against individual adjuster
The insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims against both his insurer and its claim adjuster. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing there was no viable claim against the adjuster, and that the adjuster was joined to improperly destroy diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal to federal court.
Judge Stickman found Pennsylvania case law made clear that neither a breach of insurance contract or insurance bad faith claim could be pursued against an individual claim adjuster working for the insured’s carrier. He cites the 2017 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Brown v. Everett, summarized here, holding that “a statutory action for bad faith can only be brought against the insurer,” and not an adjuster.
Judge Stickman rejected the argument that the adjuster could be sued under the “participation theory,” finding that theory inapposite to the context of an insurance adjuster handling a claim for an insurance company. Thus, he dismissed the claims against the adjuster with prejudice, which further resulted in jurisdiction over the remaining claims against the insurer being proper in federal court.