According to the Opinion, this case arose out of the
carrier’s denial of the insured’s claim under a homeowner’s policy after the
insured’s home was damaged by fire.
Part of the issues raised in this matter included an
allegation that the insured had submitted material misrepresentations to the
carrier after the fire loss in that he, in part, asserted that diamond stud
earrings and a Louis Vuitton purse were lost in the fire. During the carrier’s investigation, the
carrier consulted with the insured’s ex-fiancĂ© who confirmed that she was in
possession of the diamond stud earrings and the Louis Vuitton purse that the insured
claimed had been lost in the fire.
After securing a legal opinion on whether the policy could be voided due to an alleged material misrepresentation by the insured, the
carrier decided to deny the claim and to file a lawsuit against the insured for
a Declaratory Judgment to seek judicial confirmation that the carrier was not required to provide coverage to
the insured based upon alleged material misrepresentations. The carrier also included a claim against
the insured for civil insurance fraud in the Complaint.
The insured responded by filing an Answer and Counterclaims
for breach of contract and statutory bad faith.
The case later came before the court on cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment.
After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law
pertaining to Pennsylvania’s Bad Faith Statute and applying the same to the
record before it, the court granted the carrier’s motion and denied the
insured’s motion.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, along with Attorneys Richard McMonigle and Brian Shay of Post & Schell for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.