In the case of Canizares
v. Hartford Insurance Company, No. 16-1465 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2016 Pratter,
J.), the court dismissed a bad faith claim, without prejudice, after finding
that the Plaintiff failed to meet the federal law standards of pleading a
plausible claim by simply alleging legal conclusions.
This matter arose out of damages caused to the Plaintiff’s
home by a burst water pipe. According
to the Opinion, the insurance company paid for some of the damages to the
premises as well as certain damages to personal property. The Plaintiffs filed suit for the unpaid
expenses associated with repairing damages to the premises along with a bad
faith claim.
The court reviewed the federal court threshold for pleadings
under the Iqbal/Twombly standard
which requires a Plaintiff to plead sufficient factual content to allow a court
to draw a reasonable inference that the Defendant is allegedly liable for the
misconduct pled.
Here, the court found that the Plaintiff’s allegations
primarily consisted of legal conclusions such that the federal court threshold
for pleadings was not met. However, the
court dismissed the bad faith claim without prejudice in the event the
Plaintiff later discovered information sufficient to factually plead such a
claim.
Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris and his fellow writers of the Pennsylvania
and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog (www.pabadfaithlaw.com) for bringing this decision to
my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.