Among the issues reviewed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court were whether or not the Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Travelers had allegedly acted in bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371 in its handling of this underinsured motorist claim. The Court also addressed the validity of the entry of punitive damages against the carrier as well as the award of expert witness fees and costs of litigation under the bad faith statute.
In this Grossi opinion, the Superior Court again reviewed the principals of law pertaining to its review of a verdict in an insurance bad faith claim under 42
Applying the applicable standard of review to the case before it, the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed with the trial court’s findings that the carrier’s establishment of a reserved amount of only $1,000.00 under the case presented was without any basis, thereby supporting the bad faith claims presented.
The Superior Court also faulted the carrier in its rejection of the Claimant’s loss of future earnings claim given the record presented. The carrier is also faulted for delaying or postponing an independent medical evaluation of the Claimant while the carrier monitored the Claimant’s third party claims. It is also noted that the carrier never secured a report from an economist even after noting a need to do so.
Overall, the Superior Court noted that, while the length of time the carrier took to investigate the claims presented was not per se bad faith, it was indeed a factor to be considered by the trial court in considering all of the circumstances of the bad faith claim. The Superior Court found that the factors reviewed by the trial court supported the trial court’s conclusion that the Plaintiff had met their burden of proof of bad faith.
The court also found that the punitive damages award under 42
With regard to the final issue raised by the defendant carrier, the Superior Court agreed with the carrier’s position that expert witness fees should not have been awarded under the allowance of an award for "costs" under the bad faith statute.
With regards to the issues raised by the Plaintiff on appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Grossi also revisited the issue
previously raised in the case of Marlette v. State Farm [click on case name to go to that Tort Talk post and LINK to Marlette decision], as to whether the trial court erred or abused it discretion
in calculating interest, or delay damages, based upon the $300,000 underlying
UIM policy limits, rather than the $4 million dollar arbitration award entered.
The Superior Court followed the Marlette decision in this regard and
determined that, in accordance with Marlette,
the Plaintiff’s recovery of delay damages under Pa. R.C.P. 238 is limited to the amount of the legally
recoverable molded verdict as reflected by the amount insurance policy limits.
The Superior Court also noted that, under the language of the bad faith statute, 42
Anyone wishing to review of copy of this decision by the
Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Grossi
v. Travelers may click on this LINK.
I send thanks to Stuart J. Setcavage of Setcavage Consultant
& Mediation in Pittsburgh ,
Pennsylvania for forwarding this
interesting case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.