Monday, January 25, 2021

A Difference of Opinioin on the Value of a UIM Claim Does Not Equal Bad Faith

In the case of Satterfield v. Geico, No. 20-1400 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2020 Pratter, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court dismissed a bad faith action after confirming the well-settled law that a difference of opinion as to the value of a UIM claim, in and of itself, does not amount to bad faith. 

In this matter, the court found that the Complaint lacked the particularity required to state a claim for bad faith and, given that only conclusory allegations of bad faith were pled, the Complaint was dismissed.

The Plaintiff was allowed to file an Amended Complaint that more specifically identified the carrier’s allegedly unreasonable conduct.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock from the Pittsburgh law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.