Insurance Bad Faith Claim Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Moravia Motorcycle, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 2:21-CV-01274-PLD (W.D. Pa. July 24, 2023 Dodge, M.J.), a federal magistrate judge dismissed a Defendant insurance company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract and Bad Faith Action over a denial of coverage for water damage to a motorhome.

The court found that the carrier failed to show that the loss was excluded under the policy. 

The carrier also did not demonstrate that there were undisputed facts that would preclude the Plaintiff from proceeding on the bad faith claim asserted. Rather, the Plaintiff argued that the carrier’s handling of the claim was less than complete and was, to some extent, unreasonably delayed.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff faulted the carrier for allegedly failing to advise the Plaintiffs, in writing, of the denial of the claim. It was also noted that the carrier allegedly did not provide the Plaintiff with the reasons for the denial.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 10, 2023).

Photo by Rob Hayman on www.unsplash.com.

Federal Court Addresses Collateral Estoppel Issues In UIM Case Where Plaintiff Secured Less Than Liability Limits At Third Party Arbitration

In the case of Holland v. Progressive Spec. Ins. Co., No. 23-0910-KSM (E.D. Pa. April 10, 2023 Marston, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss portions of a Plaintiff’s bad faith claim in a UIM case.

The court denied the Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s breach of contract action.

According to the Opinion, the carrier moved to dismiss the Complaint which was based upon the carrier’s denial of the Plaintiff’s UIM claim.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had previously arbitrated his claims against the tortfeasor and secured an Arbitration Award.

The Plaintiff then signed a Release in which the Plantiff released all of his claims against the tortfeasor, the tortfeasor’s insurance company and “any other person, firm, or corporation” chargeable with responsibility for the accident.

The Plaintiff had included a handwritten clause on the Release reserving his right to bring a UM/UIM claim against his own insurance carrier.

The Plaintiff had additionally sent a request to his own insurance carrier for consent to settle before he signs the Release.

The UIM carrier also noted the arbitrator had found that the Plaintiff’s damages did not exceed the tortfeasor credit and, as such, the UIM carrier denied the claim presented.  More specifically, in the third party arbitration the Plaintiff had been awarded $58,029.85 in a case where the tortfeasor had $100,000 in liability coverage.

The Plaintiff sued the UIM carrier in state court for breach of contract and bad faith. The carrier removed the action to the federal court.

In its Motion to Dismiss the carrier primarily argued that the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by collateral estoppel. The carrier also noted that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support a bad faith claim.

Relative to the bad faith claim, the court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint consisted of conclusory statements unsupported by facts. There were no details provided describing what was allegedly unfair about the UIM carrier’s settlement negotiations and the Complaint also failed to explain what alleged misrepresentation the UIM carrier may have made.

In its decision, the court noted that, relative to the bad faith claim, the UIM carrier’s argument that the other driver was not driving an underinsured motor vehicle was reasonable and was supported by the case law and the facts and circumstances of this case.

The court also found that the Plaintiff did not allege any fact to suggest that the UIM carrier denied the Plaintiff’s claim with “ill will” or under a “dishonest purpose.” It was also noted that the Plaintiff did not assert that the UIM carrier’s decision to deny coverage was made with undue delay.

Relative to the breach of contract action and the argument that the same was barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine, the federal court found that it needed additional information as to the scope of the Arbitration in order to determine if the carrier had satisfied its burden of establishing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. In this regard, it was indicated that neither party to the action had submitted to the court a copy of the Arbitration Agreement, the Arbitration record, or the Arbitrator’s findings. As such, the Motion to Dismiss the breach of contract action was denied.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 27, 2023).

Bad Faith Claim Dismissed Relative to Homeowner's Insurance Claim Following a Hurricane

In the case of Smith v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 2:21-CV-05048-JP (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2022 Padova, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Dismiss a bad faith claim filed by the Defendant in a case in which the Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of a homeowners insurance policy and bad faith relative to damage caused to the Plaintiff’s property by a hurricane.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint regarding the carrier’s alleged unresponsiveness to the Plaintiff, investigator failures, dilatory conduct, and unsubstantiated coverage denials provided a sufficient factual basis to survive the carrier’s Motion to Dismiss.

As such, the carrier’s Motion to Dismiss was denied.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 26, 2022).

UIM Bad Faith Claim Allowed to Proceed; UTPCPL Claim Dismissed

In the case of Wingrove v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-00940 (W.D. Pa. March 28, 2022 Colville, J.), the court found that a Plaintiff adequately pled a UIM bad faith claim regarding claims handling issues and an alleged delay in payment. However, the Court dismissed claims that were brought by the Plaintiff under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) as well as under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.

According to the Opinion, the insured brought bad faith claims regarding the carrier’s failure to pay UIM benefits and wage loss benefits. The carrier filed a Motion to Dismiss in this federal court matter.

After reviewing the Complaint, the court found that the Complaint described in sufficient detail the facts that described the who, what, where, when, and how questions with regard to alleged bad faith conduct.

More specifically, the court found that the Plaintiff had alleged facts in support of claims of a lack of any investigation or evaluation, alleged repeated failures on the part of the carrier to communicate with the Plaintiff’s counsel despite Plaintiff’s counsel’s attempt to contact the carrier, and also alleged an unexplained delay of seven (7) months between the Plaintiff’s demand and the carrier’s offer. The court found that these allegations were sufficient to allow the bad faith claim to proceed.

The court otherwise dismissed the Plaintiff’s UTPCPL claims after finding that that law did not apply to claims handling, but only to conduct prior to the entry of an insurance agreement. The court noted that the allegations all involved claims handling issues and not the sale of an insurance policy.

The court also agreed that the claims raised by the Plaintiff under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1716 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, which addressed first party benefits issues, did not apply to UIM claims. As such, those claims were dismissed as well.

The court otherwise refused to strike references to a fiduciary duty as set forth in the Complaint. In this regard, the court found that the Plaintiff had not specifically asserted any claim for a breach of a fiduciary duty and that there was, therefore, no need for the drastic action of striking allegations sounding in that regard from the case at that early stage of the case.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law office of Fineman Krekstein and Harris, and also the writer of the Pennsylvania New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.  Click HERE to view Lee's Blog.

UIM Bad Faith Claim Allowed to Proceed But UTPCPL Claim Dismissed

In the case of Defuso v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:21-CV-507 (M.D. Pa. March 21, 2022), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania found that a Plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to survive a Motion to Dismiss her bad faith claim in a UIM case. However, the Plaintiff’s claims for violations under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law were dismissed.

According to the Opinion, the tortfeasor tendered its $100,000.00 liability limits to the Plaintiff and the UIM carrier agreed to consent to that settlement. The Plaintiff had $50,000.00 in stacked UIM coverage.

The record in the case revealed that the Plaintiff participated in discovery, a statement under oath, and an IME over the first seventeen (17) months of the claim. Following the expiration of that time, the carrier made its first offer of $7,500.00.

Judge Malachy E. Mannion
M.D. Pa.

In his Opinion, Judge Mannion found that the Plaintiff had adequately pled a bad faith claim. Judge Mannion rejected the argument of the defense that the case merely involved a valuation dispute. 

In so ruling, the court pointed to allegations by the Plaintiff that there were delays in the claims handling and that the carrier allegedly failed to entirely and appropriately investigate and evaluate the case presented. The Plaintiff also alleged that the carrier had unreasonably undervalued the Plaintiff’s claims.

The court did, however, dismiss the Plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim after finding that the Plaintiff merely recited the elements of such claim and did not allege facts to support the same. The court additionally noted that a claim of an alleged failure on the part of the carrier to act on an insurance claim in a timely manner was not a valid cause of action under the UTPCPL, as such a claim is a claim for nonfeasance as opposed to a claim of malfeasance.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the law office of Fineman Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention. Please be sure to check out Attorney Applebaum’s excellent Pennsylvania New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog.

UM Bad Faith Claim Regarding Disagreement Over Value of Claim Dismissed

In the case of Brown v. LM Gen. Ins. Co., No. 21-2134 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2021 Pratter, J.), the court granted a Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s bad faith claim in a UM matter after finding that the Plaintiff could not sustain a bad faith claim against the insurance company where the allegations in her Amended Complaint boiled down to a disagreement between the parties over the amount of a settlement for uninsured motorist benefits.

In this matter, the Plaintiff had alleged that the carrier, among other things, failed to conduct a medical evaluation, review the Plaintiff’s medical records, or otherwise invest the claims presented prior to offering a settlement. The Plaintiff also claimed that the carrier was dilatory in its claims handling practices when it allegedly mispresented that it would resolve the claim and then continuously and endlessly requested documentation before ignoring that documentation.

The defense argued that the Plaintiff had simply recycled the same allegations as in the initial pleading. The carrier also asserted that the Amended Complaint again came down to a claim by the Plaintiff that, because the carrier allegedly failed to offer an amount to which the Plaintiff believed she was entitled, the carrier allegedly acted in bad faith. The carrier also emphasized that there was a serious dispute in this case as to whether or not the Plaintiff was even entitled to coverage under the applicable policy.

After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law regarding bad faith claims, the court found that, although the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint listed thirty-eight (38) ways in which Liberty Mutual allegedly acted in bad faith, the list was a list of conclusions, not facts. The court found that there were no details offered by the Plaintiff that would describe or was supposedly unfair about the process.

Relative to the claim that the carrier acted in a dilatory fashion, the court noted that the Plaintiff failed to meet her requirement of asserting specific facts to support that allegation such as the number of months between a demand and a settlement offer. 

The court noted that, in the end, the Amended Complaint simply reflected a disagreement between the parties over the amount of an appropriate settlement of the claims presented. The court reiterated a well-settled law that an insured must do more than allege an allegedly “low-ball” offer.

The court also emphasized that “a policy limit- -as its name suggests- -is the theoretical maximum that an insured could recover. ‘It is not the de fecto value of a claim.’” See Op. at p. 5.

Given that the Plaintiff had failed to support her claim for bad faith with facts, this claim was dismissed with prejudice.

The court also addressed the carrier’s Motion to Strike all references in the Plaintiff’s Complaint that the carrier’s conduct was reckless, wanton, and willful relative to the declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims.

The court found that, in order to prevail on a Motion to Strike allegations, the allegations must not only be unrelated to the claim presented but the moving party must show how the moving party will be prejudiced if the allegations are allowed to remain in the pleadings.

Given that the carrier failed to explain how it will be prejudiced in this matter if the challenged allegations are not stricken, the court denied the Motion to Strike. The court also noted that a bald assertion that the carrier acted willfully or recklessly is only a legal conclusion that the court need not accept as true.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 17, 2021).

Claim of Bad Faith Delay in UIM Tender Dismissed in Monroe County

In the case of Sabajo v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 7703-CV-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. June 22, 2021 Williamson, J.), the court granted the carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a motor vehicle accident matter.

The Plaintiff was pursuing a UIM and bad faith claim against the carrier. After the UIM claim was resolved, the Plaintiff continued with the bad faith claim under primary allegations of an unreasonable delay in the tendering of the UIM policy limits for almost a year. The Plaintiffs asserted that the carrier new, or recklessly disregarded that it allegedly lacked a reasonable basis to delay the payment.

After reviewing the record before him, Judge Williamson ruled that, based upon the medical records provided, which included information regarding treatment for pre-existing injuries, it was reasonable for the carrier to request discovery, medical lien amounts, and to eventually subpoena additional medical records to be certain of what was being claimed before the carrier made a settlement offer. The court noted that the record was consistent with the deposition testimony of the Allstate claims representative during which the representative indicated that it was only after the receipt of the additional information requested that he could finalize this evaluation and offer the policy limits.

In so ruling, the court noted that the claims representative’s request for additional information, including medical lien information, was “standard.” See Op. at 6. The court noted that, once the information was received, primarily by the beginning of 2020, the policy limits were tendered in March of 2020.

The court noted that, while the Plaintiffs made a claim for benefits in April of 2019, and eventually filed suit in September of 2019, the court could not say that this represented an unreasonable delay by Allstate in tendering the limits under the facts presented. Rather, the court found that the “steps taken [by the carrier] were prudent under the circumstances.” See Op. at 6. The court noted that, as soon as the confirmation of the diagnoses and causation was made, the carrier tendered the policy limits. As such, the court found that there is no unreasonable delay. This compelled the court to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the carrier.

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

Source of image: Photo by Karim Manjra on Unsplash.

First Party and UIM Bad Faith Claims Dismissed in Post-Koken Case; Leave to Amend Granted

 

In the case of Canfield v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 20-2794 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2020 Pappert, J.), the court ruled that a Plaintiff could not recover  damages under Pennsylvania's MVFRL or on her bad faith claim  where the allegations in her Complaint suggested nothing more than an ordinary dispute with her carrier over the value of her claims in this post-Koken auto accident matter.

More specifically, the court found that the facts alleged regarding the dispute between the Plaintiff and the carrier over the value of the claim and the payment of first party benefits did not amount to allegations of wanton conduct as required for the relief requested by the Plaintiff relative to her first party medical benefits claims asserted under Section 1797 of the MVFRL.

The court's decision with respect to Section 1797 is also notable in that the court followed prior precedent holding that, unless the carrier's actions fall outside the ambit of Section 1797 and involves bad faith abuses not related to the challenge of the denial of first party medical benefits, the MVFRL preempts the statutory bad faith claim concerning the Plaintiff's request for PIP benefits.

With regards to any separate bad faith claims asserted by the Plaintiff in the Complaint, the court pointed out that the Plaintiff did not aver an unreasonable denial of UIM or first party medical benefits by the carrier, but rather only alleged a delay in the payment of the same and an allegedly unreasonable position taken by the carrier on the value of the case.  

The court found that, while the Plaintiff disagreed with the value put on the file by the carrier, she had not asserted facts in the Complaint to support an allegation that the carrier's evaluation was unreasonable and/or that the carrier knew that it was unreasonable, all as is required to move forward on a bad faith claim.  

The court noted that, to proceed on a bad faith UIM claim in this regard, the Plaintiff must allege more than that the carrier extended "low-ball offers."  The court reaffirmed the rule of law that a carrier is permitted to make low but reasonable offers of settlement without fear of being found in bad faith. 

In the end, the court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to try to assert valid claims with regards to the above issues.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.  The court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source: "Digest of Recent Opinions - Most Viewed Opinions."  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 3, 2020).

Statutory Bad Faith Claim Dismissed in UIM Matter Where Plaintiff Settled for Substantially Less Than Tortfeasor's Liability Limits

In the case of Fertig v. Kelley, No. 16-CV-4801 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 5, 2020 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted a UIM carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regards to a statutory bad faith claim in a UIM case. 

According to the Opinion, following a motor vehicle accident, the Plaintiff filed a post-Koken action against both the third party tortfeasor driver and the Plaintiff's own underinsured motorist carrier. The Plaintiff also asserted a bad faith claim against the UIM carrier pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371. 

The claim against the third party defendant was settled and, thereafter, the remaining claims against the UIM carrier continued.

In support of a bad faith claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the UIM carrier had a duty to pay UIM benefits “that were reasonably due,” but “failed to promptly offer payment of the reasonable and fair failure” of her claim. 

The court noted that the record before it confirmed that the UIM carrier had promptly addressed and resolved an issue regarding the timing of the named insured’s execution of her limited tort coverage election form, and had also reformed the insurance policy to afford full tort coverage to the Plaintiff in light of the same. 

It was additionally noted that, once the Plaintiff presented a settlement demand for UIM benefits fourteen (14) months after the UIM carrier had granted the Plaintiff full tort status, the UIM carrier denied the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the tortfeasor’s liability insurance coverage of $100,000.00 was sufficient to compensate the Plaintiff for her alleged injuries. 

After the Plaintiff later settled her liability claim against the tortfeasor for only $57,500.00 out of the available $100,000 in liability limits, the UIM carrier eventually filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regards to the Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim. I note that I was the defense attorney for the third part tortfeasor in this matter. 

Judge Nealon noted that, in order to recover damages for bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371, the Plaintiff must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the UIM carrier (1) did not have a reasonable basis for denying the request for UIM benefits, and (2) knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis to deny the UIM claim. 

The court noted that, even viewing the record in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff as required by the standard of review for a summary judgment motion, the court found that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to support a claim that the UIM carrier lacked a reasonable basis for declining to pay UIM benefits to the Plaintiff and/or that it knew or recklessly disregarded any alleged lack of reasonable basis for denying the request for UIM benefits. 

Judge Nealon noted that “[a] dispute between an insurer and a claimant regarding the value of a UIM claim is not uncommon, and, standing alone, does not create a triable issue of fact as to the insured’s bad faith.” 

The court found that the facts before the court not only supported an objective conclusion that a reasonable carrier would have denied the Plaintiff’s UIM claim on the basis that her damages did to exceed $100,000.00, as evidence, in part, by the Plaintiff’s voluntary tort settlement of only $57,500.00 of the available $100,000.00 liability limits, but that the record was also devoid of any evidence that the UIM carrier knew or recklessly disregarded its alleged lack of a reasonable basis for denying the Plaintiff’s claim for benefits.  

As such, while the court ruled that the Plaintiff may still pursue a claim for UIM benefits, subject to a credit owed for the tortfeasor’s liability coverage limit of $100,000.00, the court was granting the UIM carrier’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment relative to the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. 

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

UIM Bad Faith Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss

A Plaintiff in a UIM bad faith case was found to have met the federal pleading requirements to survive a Motion to Dismiss in the case of Lowndes v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of America, No. 19-5823 (E.D. Pa. April 17, 2020 Jones, II, J.).

In this matter, the UIM Plaintiffs alleged that the injured insured suffered serious injuries requiring ongoing treatment. The third party tortfeasor’s carrier had paid $250,000.00. The insureds were seeking the full $1 million dollar UIM coverage limit from the UIM carrier.

According to the Opinion, the UIM carrier’s highest offer was $200,000.00, which offer was made nearly three (3) years after the original claim.

The insureds filed suit and asserted a breach of contract and bad faith claims.

The Complaint asserted that the Plaintiffs had cooperated with the carrier and provided information over a thirty-two (32) month period. The Plaintiffs alleged that they had provided detailed information from which the carrier could have fairly evaluated the information and made a timely and reasonable offer on the claim.

The Plaintiffs alleged that they estimated their claim to be in excess of $1 million dollars based upon the Plaintiff’s alleged unchallenged medical records, narrative reports, vocational loss, and medical prognosis reports, all of which had been provided to the Defendant carrier. The Plaintiffs alleged that the carrier had failed to timely respond or comply with the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s request for the carrier to fairly evaluate the UIM claim.

The Plaintiffs also specifically alleged in their Complaint that the carrier “did not have a reasonable basis for delaying and/or denying underinsured motorist benefits or a partial tender of such under the policy” for nearly three (3) years. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs characterized the carrier’s refusal to pay as frivolous and unfounded and also pled that the carrier “lacked a legal and factual basis” for its evaluation of the case presented.

The carrier moved to dismiss the claim of bad faith due to the Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to adequately plead the same.

The court reiterated the rule that, while a delay may be evidence of bad Faith, standing alone, a delay does not make out an automatic case for bad faith.

The court noted that, in evaluating whether a delay might constitute bad faith, “‘[t]he primary consideration is the degree to which a Defendant insurer knew it had no basis to deny the Claimant: if delays attributable to the need to investigate further or even to simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred.’” [emphasis in Opinion].

The court, in its Opinion recognized the potential negative impact of an alleged thirty two (32) month delay between the submission of the claim by the Plaintiff and the carrier’s offer. However, the court noted that, standing alone, this delay could not prove bad faith. However, the court found that there are additional factual allegations in the Complaint to support the bad faith delay argument.

With regards to the allegations of bad faith conduct on the part of the carrier, the court pointed out that the carrier had not sought an independent medical examination or a records review within the thirty two (32) month period as part of the effort to properly evaluate the claim presented. It was also noted that the Plaintiffs had argued that the carrier’s Motion to Dismiss did not include any argument that the “delay was attributable to the need to investigate the further or even to simple negligence.”

Based upon the entire record before him, Judge Jones II of the Eastern District found that the Plaintiff had set forth a plausible bad faith claim that focused on an alleged lack of investigation and failure to communicate on the part of the carrier. The court also noted that it was wholly plausible that the carrier did not have a reasonable basis for denying the Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the information that was provided to the carrier by the Plaintiff.

The court additionally stated that, “viewing the time lapse in conjunction with the lack of an independent medical evaluation by Defendant, it is plausible that Defendant knew of, or recklessly disregarded, its lack of a reasonable basis for denying Plaintiffs’ benefits of the policy.”

In the end, the court also disagreed with the defense argument that the matter before him was merely a disagreement over a fair evaluation of the case presented. Rather, the court found that, under the standard of review which required the court to assume the truth of the Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, the allegations were found to have set out a plausible Complaint that the carrier had made an unreasonably low offer, or no offer, which potentially constituted bad faith conduct under Pennsylvania law.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention. Please be sure to check out Attorney Applebaum’s excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog.