In the case of Peters v. Geico, No. 19-CV-1119 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2019 Caputo, J.), the court dismissed a Plaintiff’s UIM bad faith claim after finding numerous allegations in support of this theory of recovery to be conclusory.
In completing his analysis, the court stripped away the
conclusory allegations in the Complaint to determine whether the bad faith
claim was plausible under federal pleadings standards. Once the court stripped away
the conclusory allegations, the bad faith claim was simply based upon the facts
that there was an accident, a tortfeasor’s willingness to pay the policy
limits, and insured’s written demand for UIM benefits supported by a medical
report, followed by a UIM carrier’s failure to settle.
The court noted that these facts, alone, did not support a claim for bad faith which requires proof of an unreasonable denial of benefits in a knowing or reckless fashion by the carrier with the knowledge that its denial of benefits was unreasonable.
The court noted that these facts, alone, did not support a claim for bad faith which requires proof of an unreasonable denial of benefits in a knowing or reckless fashion by the carrier with the knowledge that its denial of benefits was unreasonable.
The court did allow the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint but
cautioned that the Amended Complaint would be required to set forth facts and
not merely conclusory allegations in support of the bad faith claim.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision by Judge
Caputo in the Middle District may click this
I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia
law firm of Fineman, Krekstein, & Harris for bringing this decision to my
attention. Check out Attorney Applebaum's Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Blog for the latest notable bad faith cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.