The Plaintiff basically asserted that the insurance company had allegedly fraudulently induced her to purchase medical expense benefits coverage that it allegedly never truly intended to provide.
The Plaintiff also asserted that the carrier unjustifiably initiated numerous peer reviews by allegedly biased medical professionals in order to allegedly manufacturer a sham basis upon which to deny coverage for allegedly reasonable and necessary treatment.
In additional to suing the carrier for breach of contract and bad faith, the Plaintiff also sued the individual claims representative as well.
The carrier filed Preliminary Objections relative to the Plaintiff’s demand for counsel fees under §1716 and §1798 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
In additional to suing the carrier for breach of contract and bad faith, the Plaintiff also sued the individual claims representative as well.
The carrier filed Preliminary Objections relative to the Plaintiff’s demand for counsel fees under §1716 and §1798 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.
The carrier also filed Preliminary Objections against the bad faith claim.
The claims representative also filed a demurrer on the claims against that party.
Challenges were also made against the claims under the UTPCPL.
The court granted the demurrer asserted by the claims adjuster after finding that the Plaintiff was not able to demonstrate a duty of care owed to the claims adjuster to the insured so as to expose the adjuster to individual tort liability.
The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff had stated a valid cause of action against the carrier for bad faith. The court also found that the claims were not barred by the gist of the action doctrine. The court additionally found that the economic loss doctrine did not preclude the tort claims asserted by the Plaintiff.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
The claims representative also filed a demurrer on the claims against that party.
Challenges were also made against the claims under the UTPCPL.
The court granted the demurrer asserted by the claims adjuster after finding that the Plaintiff was not able to demonstrate a duty of care owed to the claims adjuster to the insured so as to expose the adjuster to individual tort liability.
The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff had stated a valid cause of action against the carrier for bad faith. The court also found that the claims were not barred by the gist of the action doctrine. The court additionally found that the economic loss doctrine did not preclude the tort claims asserted by the Plaintiff.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source of image: Photo by Marek Studzinski on www.unsplash.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.