In the case of Swientisky
v. American States Insurance Company, No. 3:18-cv-1159 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8,
2018 Caputo, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part the UIM
carrier’s Motion to Dismiss relative to a UIM claim asserted by the
Plaintiff.
According to the Opinion, this matter involved a UIM claim
in which bad faith was not pled.
Rather, this was a breach of contract claim that included allegations of
generic violations of the Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law in support of a
claim for UIM benefits.
The UIM carrier filed a Motion to Dismiss asserting that
allegations of improper claim handling should be stricken from the Complaint
because such alleged improper claim handling was not relevant to a cause of
action in which bad faith has not been pled.
The court disagreed and found that improper claim handling
could be relevant to a contract claim, even in the absence of bad faith,
because the decision-making during the claims handling could go to the
reasoning behind the denial of the contract claim.
On another issue, the UIM carrier asserted that the court
should dismiss, or order a more definite statement, with respect to the
insured’s unidentified statutory violations given that the Plaintiff had failed
to allege any bad faith violation or identify the provisions of the MVFRL that
the carrier allegedly violated.
 |
| Judge A. Richard Caputo Pa. M.D. Ct. |
Judge Caputo dismissed this statutory count in the Complaint
given that the Plaintiff had failed to plead an alleged statutory violation
with any detail and given that the facts pled did not set forth such alleged
wrongdoing.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Opinion may click this LINK. The companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia
law firm of Fineman Krekstein & Harris, and writer of the Pennsylvania and
New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog, for bringing this case to my
attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.