Federal Court Rejects Plaintiff's Request to Remand UIM Breach of Contract/Bad Faith Claim Back to State Court

In the case of Victoria-Melo v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. Of America, No. 5:25-CV-07282-JMG (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2026 Gallagher, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand a UIM/Bad Faith suit back to state court.

The insurance company had removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00.

The Plaintiff responded by asserting that the Defendants had failed to establish the amount in controversy. The Plaintiffs also argued that the action presented unsettled issues of Pennsylvania insurance law that would be better resolved by the state courts.

After reviewing the matter before it, the court concluded that diversity jurisdiction existed and that abstention was not warranted.

In so ruling on the issue of whether the exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the federal court considered the factors set forth by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Reifer case. 

As part of this analysis, the court found that this case did not present the type of unsettled or novel issues of state law that would weigh in favor of abstention. 

One issue in this regard in this case is that the Plaintiff contended that the applicability of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to an insurance policy issued outside of Pennsylvania presented as an unresolved legal question. 

The court disagreed and pointed to Pennsylvania cases that had addressed the issue previously. As such, this case was found to involve the routine application of established statutory language and insurance principles to the case at hand.

As such, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand was denied.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Candace M. Edgar of the Camp Hill, PA office of Marshall Dennehey for bringing this case to my attention.

PA Federal Court Predicts PA Supreme Court Will Adopt Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine in Property Insurance Coverage Cases

In the case of Stella Prop. Dev. and Event Prod., LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 3:24-CV-00060-SLH (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026 Smith, J.), the court ruled in favor of an insurance carrier on Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in an insurance coverage, breach of contract, and bad faith claims.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a commercial property policy that offered protection to the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff’s property allegedly sustained damages from a windstorm.

The Plaintiff had an inspection completed and submitted a claim to the insurance company for first-party property coverage. The Plaintiff provided the carrier with the inspection report.

The carrier had their own inspection completed and that report indicated that the damage to the Plaintiff’s roof involved shingles that appeared to be over twenty-five (25) years of age and in very poor condition. That expert also concluded that no sudden loss created the damages to the roof. 

The carrier also secured an engineering expert who completed an additional inspection and also concluded that the roof and the shingles on the roof were not damaged by the wind event. Based at least in part on these reports, the carrier denied the claim.

In issuing the denial, the carrier relied upon certain exclusions including a wear-and-tear exclusion and a maintenance exclusion.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed suit alleging a breach of contract and bad faith claims. The matter came before this court on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on the issues presented.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motions and granted the insurance company’s Motions.

In reviewing the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of contract claim, the court noted that, based upon the exclusions claimed by the carrier, the carrier was asserting that summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was inappropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the damages to the roof pre-existed the storm or were caused by the storm.

In this regard, the court reviewed the efficient proximate cause doctrine and compared it to the concurrent causation doctrine in coverage dispute matters.

In the end, this court predicated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would adopt and apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine if faced with the issue.

Applying that doctrine to the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claims of a breach of contract is not defeated merely because wear-and-tear and/or inadequate maintenance may have contributed to the roof damage. Rather, the Plaintiff must still be provided with an opportunity to prove that the windstorm was the “dominant and efficient” cause of the roof destruction as opposed to being merely a “remote” or “incidental” cause. 

Given that there were issues of material fact in this regard, the court ruled that this question should be decided by a jury.

Relative to the carrier’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim, the court ruled that the Plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that the carrier lacked a reasonable basis to deny the claim. 

The court noted that the record before it confirmed that the carrier relied upon detailed investigative materials and expert assessments that attributed the roof damage to decay and wear-and-tear. 

The court found that these expert assessments supplied an objectively reasonable basis for the carrier to conclude that wear-n-tear and/or inadequate maintenance, as opposed to a covered windstorm, was the dominant and efficient cause of the loss, and that the exclusions therefore applied.

The court noted that the mere possibility that the insured may prevail at proving the Plaintiff’s case in this regard “hardly equates to bad faith.” Rather, the court noted that the question under the bad faith statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371 is whether the denial lacked a reasonable basis. The court cited to other case law confirming that a reasonable basis for the denial of a claim is all that is required in order to defeat a claim of insurance bad faith.

Based on this law, the court ruled in favor of the carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the bad faith issues and dismissed that claim of the Plaintiff with prejudice.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Robert S. Stickley of Stickley Law LLC in Newtown Square, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Andreas Ebner on www.pexels.com.

Senior Judge Minora Addresses Permissible Scope of Pre-Complaint Discovery Addressed to an Insurance Company in a Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Minooka Pastry Inc. v. Erie Insurance, No. 2024-CV-4077 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Jan. 15, 2026), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed pre-Complaint discovery issues in a bad faith and breach of contract action brought against an insurance carrier.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of a claim presented by the Minooka Bakery to Erie Insurance for water damage sustained the interior of the property during a windstorm. After Erie denied the claim, the Minooka Bakery was seeking to commence a multi-count lawsuit against Erie, including causes of action for bad faith, breach of contract, and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

To assist it in the preparation of a Complaint, the Minooka Bakery served upon Erie Insurance written discovery requests. In response, Erie objected to the same but otherwise independently provided some materials along with a privilege log.

This matter came before the court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Pre-Complaint Discovery under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8. The Plaintiff asserted that it was still in need of additional information and documentation despite the materials produced by Erie Insurance. The carrier asserted that the materials it turned over were sufficient.

In the end, the court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Compel.

In so ruling, the court noted that, because the Plaintiff intends to assert a bad faith claim against its carrier, an expansion of the scope of pre-Complaint discovery was warranted given that that particular cause of action requires the Plaintiff to present clear and convincing evidence that the carrier did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and that the carrier knew, or recklessly disregarded, its alleged lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

Senior Judge Carmen D. Minora
Lackawanna County 

Judge Minora noted that the second prong of this test requires a demonstration of a heightened level of intent on the part of the carrier, thereby making inquiry into certain areas, “such as past practices and reserve information,” more likely accessible for purposes of pre-Complaint discovery.

Keeping in mind that the burden upon the Plaintiff to assert a bad faith claim sufficient to defeat any Preliminary Objections for lack of specificity, and also considering the discovery sought “will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or 

expense” under Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8(a), the court overruled the carrier’s objections, except those objections asserted with respect to privilege material. In this regard, the court reviewed the carrier’s privilege log and agreed with the carrier’s position with respect to those objections.

The court more specifically noted that, in making this ruling, it was specifically determined that “guidebooks, training manuals, non-privilege communications, reserve information, comparative claim data and regulatory filings” were within the permissible scope of pre-Complaint discovery in this matter. The court did impose a time limitation of not to exceed three (3) years prior to the date of loss relative to the scope of the information required to be produced.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Paul Walker of Walker Law in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania for bringing this case to my attention.

Superior Court Clarifies Calculation of Interest and Attorney Fees in Bad Faith Cases

In the case of DiVincenzo-Gambone v. Erie Insurance, No. 1699 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Oct. 17, 2025 Olson, J., Beck, J., Dubow, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified how interest and attorney fees should be calculated in bad faith insurance cases. 

In this decision, the appellate court also ruled in favor of the insured who had asserted that the carrier had wrongly withheld part of an Arbitration Award entered on the case presented. 

In this decision, the Superior Court vacated part of the trial court’s judgment by holding that the trial court miscalculated damages under the Pennsylvania bad baith statute when that court awarded compound interest instead of simple interest. 

The court also noted that the trial court had erred by basing attorney’s fees on a contingency rather than the lodestar method. Under the lodestar method, hours spent on a case by an attorney are multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.

The Superior Court also ruled that interest should be calculated from the date that the underlying insurance claim was made.

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


Source: Article – “Pennsylvania Superior Court Clarifies State’s Bad Faith Law In Precedential Opinion,” By Tristin Hoffman The Legal Intelligencer (Oct. 21, 2025).

Bad Faith Claim Goes Up In Smoke In Fire Loss Claim - But Right To Amend Allowed

In the case of Wendolowski v. Erie Insurance, No. 2023-CV-3806 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 14, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a carrier challenging the legal sufficiency of the insured’s bad faith claim arising out of a fire loss.

The court noted that, to recover for statutory bad faith, an insured must establish that the carrier did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and, that the carrier knew, or recklessly disregarded, its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

In this matter, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s Complaint baldly alleged that the carrier acted in bad faith in failing to pay his claimed loss in full. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not provide any facts arguably supporting any conclusion that the carrier lacked a reasonable basis for disputing the extent of the laws or that the carrier knew or recklessly disregarded the absence of such a reasonable basis.

As such, the court granted the carrier’s demurrer to the insured’s bad faith claim. However, the insured was permitted to file an Amended Complaint in an effort to provide the requisite factual support for a statutory bad faith claim.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Kurt Hudspeth on www.pexels.com.

Trial Court Grants UIM Carrier's Motion to Sever and Stay a Companion Bad Faith Claim in a Post-Koken Case

In the case of Bixler v. Erie Insurance Exchange, AD No. 2024-CV-11155 (C.P. Butler Co. June 5, 2025 Streib, J.), the court issued an Order in a post-Koken case granting the UIM carrier’s Motion to Sever and Stay the bad faith claim from the UIM claim. The court did not issue any Opinion with this Order.

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

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

Federal Court Addresses Request to Amend Complaint in a UIM Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Binotto v. Geico, No. 3:22-CV-210 (W.D. Pa. May 30, 2025 Haines, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint in order to allege bad faith against the carrier.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs had previously filed a Second Amended Complaint which included allegations of bad faith against Geico. However, the Plaintiffs opted to withdraw that Second Amended Complaint under an indication that they thought that the case would settle with the resolution of the summary judgment proceedings. 

When the case did not settle after the court’s resolution of the summary judgment motions, the Plaintiffs then presented this Motion for Leave of Court to File a Third Amended Complaint in order to put the bad faith claim back into play.

The court reviewed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which sets out the standard for granting leave to amend a Complaint when a responsive pleading has already been served. Under that rule, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or with leave of court. The rule additionally states that the court should freely give leave of court when justice so requires.

However, the court in this matter noted that the policy favoring liberal amendments is not without bounds. The decision on whether to grant or deny a Motion for Leave to Amend still rests within the sound discretion of the district court.

The court noted that a federal district court may deny leave to amend a Complaint where it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.

In this case, the court found that there is no prejudice to the Defendant by the proposed Third Amended Complaint. The court additionally found that, while the Motion for Leave was filed late in the litigation, the court did not find that the Plaintiff acted with any undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives. The court also noted that the trial date was still several months away.

Accordingly, the court addressed the element of whether the allowance of an amendment would be futile under the case presented. In this regard, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant carrier never had any intention of fairly and in good faith attempting to negotiate a settlement.

Under the facts presented in this case, the court found that the Defendant carrier’s delay in offering its settlement amount until the summary judgment proceedings were resolved and the Defendant carrier’s subsequent low settlement offer did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of bad faith in any event.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to investigate, allegedly misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to make a reasonable offer in failing to explain the offer. The court found that there were no facts presented in the proposed Third Amended Complaint to support those inferences drawn by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.

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

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

Court Denies Carrier's Motion For Summary Judgment on Residency Issue in Fire Loss Coverage Claim

In the case of Jackson v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-012244-NBF (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2025 Fischer, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant insurance carrier against claim for breach of contract and bad faith asserted by the Plaintiff relative to an homeowner’s policy and a fire loss. The court granted the defense motion as to the Plaintiff’s claim of bad faith but otherwise denied the motion.

The central question in this case was whether the Defendant insurance company had wrongfully refused to pay coverage for losses sustained by the Plaintiff’s after the Plaintiff's property was damaged in a fire.

The Defendant carrier had denied coverage on the grounds that the property was not the Plaintiff’s “residence,” and that the policy was void due to the Plaintiff’s material misrepresentation during the defense investigation. 

More specifically, the carrier asserted that the carrier falsely represented that the property was his primary residence and that it was not vacant and unoccupied. The Defendant carrier noted that the property lacked any electricity of sewer service.

The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment on the breach of contract claims after finding, in part, that the policy in question did not restrict coverage to the Plaintiff’s primary residence. Rather, the court found that the policy expressly insured the identified property.

The court held that there was an issue of material fact as to whether or not the property was the Plaintiff’s residence. The Plaintiff had noted that he was sporadically sleeping at the property while completing renovations.

The court also found that the Defendant carrier had failed to establish that the Plaintiff made any statements regarding his residence at the property with knowledge of their alleged falsity or under an alleged deliberate intent to deceive.

The court otherwise denied the Defendant carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the bad faith claim after finding that the Defendant had a reasonable basis for denying coverage.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 20, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Andrew Gaines on www.unsplash.com.

Venue of UIM Case Transferred Due To Terms of Forum Selection Clause in Policy

In the case of Winner v. Progressive Adv. Ins. Co., March Term, 2023, No. 1654 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 15, 2024 Bright, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion addressed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court relative to an appeal when trial court decisions in response to a Motion to Transfer UIM and Bad Faith Claims from Philadelphia County to Chester County.

In its Opinion, the trial court asserted that it did not commit error in transferring the UIM and bad faith claims from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas based upon an unambiguous forum selection clause contained in the automobile insurance policy at issue.

The trial court also asserted that it did not err in deciding the Preliminary Objections at issue without ruling on discovery motions which, according to the trial court, had become moot.

The trial court also requested that the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law Claim be remanded to the trial court for further consideration.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 23, 2025).

Motion To Dismiss in UIM Bad Faith Claim Denied

In the case of Debree v. American States Ins. Co., No. 3:20-CV-00247-JKM (M.D. Pa. July 30, 2024 Munley, J.), the court denied a UIM carrier’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in a case alleging breach of contract and insurance bad faith.

The Defendant focused its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s bad faith claims. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not establish that the Defendant did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy or that the Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded its allegedly lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

According to the Defendant, the record before the court established that the parties merely disagreed over the value of the UIM claim and that such agreement does not constitute bad faith.

The Plaintiff argued that factual disputes existed regarding the Defendant’s investigation into the claim, which disputes precluded the entry of summary judgment on the bad faith claim.

The court noted that, after a review of the case before it, and keeping in mind that bad faith claims are very facts-specific, the court denied the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment after finding that the Plaintiff had submitted sufficient evidence to allow the Plaintiff to proceed with the bad faith claim.

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

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Verdict In Favor of Plaintiff in Bad Faith Case

In the case of Watchward Worldwide v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 1221 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Jan. 9, 2021 Bowes, J. Kunselman, J., and Collins, J.) (Op. by Colins, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a lower court judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith claim after finding that the carrier was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law on all claims presented.

In this case, the insured filed an insurance claim for loss of electronic data as a result of a computer hacking incident. At the time, the insured was covered by the carrier under a property damage and liability insurance policy that included coverage for the reproduction or replacement of electronic data.

When the insured filed a claim with the carrier for a loss caused by the deletion of its electronic data, the carrier denied the coverage claim on the grounds that the policy did not cover the loss because the electronic data that was destroyed was not on the insured’s computers and on the grounds the cost of replacing the data lost was less than the insured’s $2,500.00 deductible.

At trial, the carrier moved for a nonsuit at the end of the Plaintiff’s case based upon the defenses noted above. The jury entered a verdict in favor of the insured. The carrier then filed post-trial motions which were denied.

A non-jury trial on the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim was then scheduled. Prior to the date of that trial, the parties agreed to proceed by way of argument based upon trial evidence and written submissions along with some additional testimony. The trial court then issued its non-jury verdict on the bad faith claim finding that the carrier had acted in bad faith based upon its denial of coverage. The trial court awarded the Plaintiff $20,000.00 in punitive damages and $50,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The trial court then denied post-trial motions filed by both parties with respect to the bad faith verdict. The case was then appealed up to the Superior Court.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the carrier’s interpretation of its own policy was correct in terms of a finding that no coverage was due to the insured under the case presented. More specifically, the Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s evidence did not prove that the Plaintiff’s loss exceeded the policy’s $2,500.00 deductible. As such, the Superior Court found that Erie did not breach its contract when it denied the request for insurance benefits under the policy.

Given that the Superior Court found that the contract had not been breached, the Superior Court also found that the carrier was entitled to judgment in its favor on the bad faith claims. The court otherwise also noted that, although a different aspect of the carrier’s denial of the claim presented may have been erroneous, the carrier’s decision in this regard was reasonable under the circumstances presented.

Accordingly, the bad faith claim failed because the Plaintiff was not able to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the carrier had no reasonable basis for denying the claims presented.

In the end, the Superior Court ruled that the carrier was entitled to judgment in its favor on all claims presented. As such, the lower court judgments entered in favor of the Plaintiff were vacated and the case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the carrier.

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

Federal Court UIM Bad Faith Claim Dismissed Where Plaintiff Did Not Plead Sufficient Facts

In the case of Hampton v. Progressive Insurance Company, 2:24-CV-01011-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2024 Kearney, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s bad faith claims and claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law in a UIM case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff secured the $15,000.00 liability limits from the third party tortfeasor and then pursued this UIM claim.

After the UIM carrier offered $1,000.00 in settlement, the Plaintiff filed a breach of contract action that included claims for statutory bad faith and unfair trade practices claims.

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim failed where the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts alleging any unreasonable conduct by the carrier or any facts that would support an inference of unreasonableness with respect to the carrier’s settlement offer.

The court otherwise stated that the Plaintiff failed to identify specific actual omissions by the Defendant carrier that were unreasonable or indicative of bad faith. Rather, the Plaintiff only made conclusory allegations that the Defendant’s settlement offer below is UIM policy limits demonstrated bad faith. The court stated that the Plaintiff did not pled any specific facts with regards to how the Defendant carrier evaluated the UIM claim or any facts that would support an inference that the $1,000.00 settlement offer was unreasonable.

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


Source: Law.com, “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” (June 13, 2024).

Source of image:   Photo by Mikhail Nilov on www.pexels.com.

Jurisdiction and Venue Issues Addressed in Insurance Coverage Action

In the case of Franko v. USAA, No. 2023-CV-1996 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 31, 2024 Nealon, J.), the court addressed a coverage action relative to the theft of an allegedly covered vehicle. After the carrier denied coverage, the insured filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith liability.

The carrier filed Preliminary Objections asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the policy’s form selection clause that limited legal actions to a court and county and state where the covered person resided at the time of the of the accident. The carrier also filed a Preliminary Objection asserting lack of personal jurisdiction based upon the allegations of the Complaint. Also asserted were improper venue objections along with a legal insufficiency of the bad faith claim.

Judge Nealon ruled that the policy’s form selection clause was inapplicable under the language of the policy given that the Plaintiff’s “comprehensive loss” claim arose from the deliberate “theft” of his vehicle, rather than an unintentional “accident.”

The court additionally ruled that, by obtaining a certificate of authority to conduct insurance business in Pennsylvania, the carrier had voluntarily consented to general personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

The court additionally found that the allegations of the Complaint, and the exhibits attached thereto, stated a cognizable bad faith claim against the carrier.

With regards to the venue issue, the court directed the parties to conduct venue discovery and to resubmit the challenge to the court for a decision thereafter.

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

Carrier Held Liable in Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Devincenzo-Gambone v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 2017-CV-09856 (C.P. Montg. Co. Oct. 12, 2022 Rogers, J.), the court entered a ruling against the carrier in a bad faith after finding that the carrier had recklessly disregarded a reasonable basis to pursue its petition following an Arbitration of a UIM case.

The court found fault with the carrier’s handling of issues regarding a binding Arbitration on the issues of stacking and damages.

The court found that the Plaintiff had presented clear and convincing evidence that the carrier did not act reasonably in investigating, evaluating, and arbitrating the Plaintiffs’ claims and that the carrier lacked a reasonable basis to hold a portion of the Arbitrator’s Award and to file a Petition to Modify or Correct the Award.

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

I send thanks to Attorney David B. Pizzica of the Philadelphia law firm of the Pansini Law Group/Pansini & Pizzica for bringing this case to my attention.

Homeowner's Insurance Bad Faith Claim Dismissed

In the case of Qin v. Travelers Personal Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-03264-KNS (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2023 Scott, J.), the court granted a Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s bad faith claim based upon the homeowner insurance carrier Defendant’s refusal to cover a loss because the property in question had been vacant for more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the loss.

The court found that the Complaint lacked factual allegations to support the bad faith claim.

This case involved issues arising under a homeowner’s insurance policy.  The Plaintiff alleged that tenants had damaged a property that he owned.

The court found that the Plaintiff did not allege any facts to support a claim of bad faith and only made conclusory allegations. The court otherwise held that the allegations in the Complaint failed to satisfy the two prongs necessary to establish a bad faith claim, that being that the Defendant allegedly lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and that the carrier knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 5, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Tierra Mallorca on www.unsplash.com.

Bad Faith Action in Fire Loss Insurance Coverage Case Dismissed

In the case of Mohanan v. Liberty Mut. Pers. Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-02956-RBS (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2023 Surrick, J.), the court granted a Defendant insurance company’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims of violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices & Consumers Protection Law, negligence, and bad faith relative to coverage questions related to the alleged smoke damage to a property.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s had failed to establish any deceptive conduct on the part of the carrier in terms of the carrier’s investigation and handling of the claim. The court also found that the Plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence of any act or omission by the carrier in terms of any alleged misrepresentations of the coverage available.

The court in this case otherwise ruled that the Plaintiff’s negligence claim was barred by the gist of the action doctrine in this breach of contract case.

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff had not pled any facts to explain why the carrier’s investigation was unreasonable.

The court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that the carrier had a special relationship with the Plaintiffs simply by virtue of the fact that the Plaintiffs had purchased an insurance policy. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of a heightened duty of care owed to the Plaintiff was rejected.

The court additionally noted that the parties had agreed that various references to treble damages, the request for attorneys’ fees, and the request for punitive damages and consequential damages should be stricken from Complaint as improper.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 14, 2023).

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.

Court Grants Partial Motion For Summary Judgment in UIM Bad Faith Case

In the case of Childs v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-01318 M.J.H. (W. Pa. June 15, 2023 Horan, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in a bad faith claim and dismissed the bad faith claim where the court found that the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence indicating that additional investigation would have changed the UIM carrier’s evaluation. The court also found that the Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the insurance company otherwise failed to conduct a diligent investigation on the case presented.

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a motor vehicle accident and a UIM claim against Progressive.

According to the Opinion, the tortfeasor Defendant tendered its limits. Progressive granted its consent to settle and, after reviewing the record, offered $1,000.00 to settle the Plaintiff’s UIM claim.

Progressive was later advised that the Plaintiff’s physician had recommended surgery for the Plaintiff’s right shoulder but that the Plaintiff had decided not to move forward with the surgery at that time.

Progressive obtained a medical expert to review the Plaintiff’s MRIs. That expert concluded the Plaintiff’s right shoulder complaints were not related to the accident.

Nevertheless, Progressive then increased the settlement offer to $2,500.00 in a case where Plaintiff’s counsel valued the case at $25,000.00 to $50,000.00. The Plaintiff responded with a bad faith and breach of contract lawsuit.

As noted above, the court found that the record failed to reveal evidence to support the bad faith claim which was dismissed by way of this Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. The court noted that Progressive’s expert’s opinion provided a reasonable basis for the carrier to conclude that the right shoulder complaints were not related to the accident.

The court also noted that the Plaintiff lacked a basis to contest the value of Progressive’s settlement offer given that the Plaintiff had dropped his wage loss claim and given that the Plaintiff was not pursuing recommended shoulder surgery.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 13, 2023).

Judge Nealon Give Complaint Drafting Tips

In the case of Dolinak v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 2021-CV-1643 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 5, 2023 Nealon J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding proper Complaint drafting in a case involving alleged weather-related damages allegedly sustained to the home of a State Farm insured.

Relative to the claims presented, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against State Farm and State Farm filed Preliminary Objections stating that, based upon the allegations of the Complaint, it was not able to confirm exactly whether the Plaintiff was asserting simply a breach of contract claim and/or a bad faith claim.

Judge Nealon reviewed the pertinent Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the related case law, regarding Complaint drafting.

The court noted that Pa. R.C.P. 1020 provides that a Plaintiff may state in the Complaint more than one cause of action against the same Defendant and that such claims may be pled in the alternative.

However, under the related case law, a Plaintiff is required to present each claim in a self-sufficient separate count within the Complaint, which count is required to include allegations of facts in support of the particular claim asserted and the relief sought.

Here, the court noted that, even reviewing the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint as a whole, the Complaint did not provide State Farm with sufficient notice of the claims against which the carrier was required to defend.

As such, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendant but allowed the Plaintiff the right to file an Amended Complaint in which the Plaintiff was required to identify the claims asserted and the damages demanded in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Federal Court Finds That UIM Bad Faith Claim Was Plausibly Pled

In the case of Perhosky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 2:23-CV-00025 (W.D. Pa. May 4, 2023 Lenihan, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a Plaintiff’s bad faith claim over the carrier’s alleged failure to pay UIM benefits after the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The court found that, based upon the pleadings in the Complaint, the Plaintiff had pled a plausible bad faith claim.

The court noted that the Plaintiff averred that the Defendant carrier failed to provide any explanation for its offer to settle the Plaintiff’s claim for $25,000.00. The Plaintiff also asserted that the carrier did not conduct any investigation and did not refer the Plaintiff to an independent medical examination.

In so ruling, the court rejected the Defendant carrier’s arguments that the Plaintiff did not take into account that the Defendant had factored into its evaluation and liability credit of $100,000.00 from the Plaintiff’s prior settlement with other insurance carriers. 

The court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the bad faith claim was simply based upon the Plaintiff’s disagreement with the carrier’s evaluation and that the carrier had not yet completed its investigation.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (June 8, 2023).