Federal Judge Denies Motion For Summary Judgment Filed by Carrier on Coverage Issues Related to Alleged Fraternity Hazing Death

In the case of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v. Dibileo, No. 3:19-CV-01003 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2021 Brann, J.), the court denied a carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its Declaratory Judgment Action regarding issues of coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy arising out of alleged actions by fraternity students in an alleged hazing death.   

The court found that the action filed by the decedent’s parents stated a claim for negligence.  The court found that policy provisions in the homeowner’s policy excluding coverage for criminal and intentional acts did not serve to insulate the carrier from the negligent claims asserted by the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action. 

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

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

Insured Loses Fight for Coverage for a Fight

In the case of State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Simone, No. 2:20-CV-00908-RJC (W.D.P. Jan. 28,2021 Colville, J.) County Court addressed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by the liability insurance company seeking a declaratory judgment that the carrier did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendant with respect to allegations set forth in an underlying complaint arising out of an altercation during which the insured punched the injured party after they bumped into one another on a walkway at a crowded concert. 

After comparing the allegations in the Plaintiff’s complaint against the terms of the policy in question, the court ruled that the allegations in the complaint described a willful physical assault and an intentional tort for which there was no coverage under the policy. 

As such, the carrier’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Plaintiff's Bid to Prevail in Defendant's Coverage Action with Liability Carrier Rejected

In the case of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Worontzoff, No. 2:20-CV-839-GAM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2020 McHugh, J.), the court granted an insurance company’s Motion to Strike an injured party’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the carrier’s declaratory judgment action seeking to establish that it was not obligated to provide coverage to its insured for injuries allegedly caused to the injured party.

The court found that the injured party’s interest, that is a plaintiff's interest, in seeking the availability of insurance proceed was not sufficient to warrant intervention as a right under F. R.C.P. 24 or as a necessary party under F. R.C.P. 19(a)(1)(2). 

The court ruled that, where an interested party only had a merely financial interest in the action and not a “legally protected interest” that party could not seek to join in the case under F.R.C.P. 19(a)(1)(B). 

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 24, 2020).

Court Finds No Duty to Defend Owed by Liability Carrier Where Daughter Did Not Reside with Insured Mother

In the case of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, No. 2019-0968-Civil (C.P. Lawr. Co. April 14, 2020 Cox, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of an auto insurance carrier arising out of a Declaratory Judgment Action regarding a coverage dispute for liability coverage given residency issues with respect to the daughter of the insured policyholder.

In this case, the insured’s daughter was involved in an accident while driving her uncle’s vehicle. The injured parties filed suit and pursued liability insurance proceeds from the uncle’s policy, as well as the policy purchased by the insured daughter’s mother. The theory against the mother’s carrier was that the daughter should have been deemed a “resident relative” of her mother's residence, thus entitling the daughter to coverage.

The carrier argued that (1) the daughter/driver denied that she resided with her mother in written discovery responses, (2) both the daughter and mother both testified at their respective depositions that they did not reside together, and (3) the record showed that the mother had removed her daughter from her policy three weeks before the accident.

In its Opinion, the Court found the terms of the applicable insurance policy to be clear and unambiguous. 

The Court went on to note the distinction between domicile and residence, and found that there was no dispute that the insured’s daughter had moved to Florida to live with her brother prior to the accident. Although she returned to Pennsylvania numerous times, the record confirmed that it was never with the intent to change her residence.

As such, summary judgment was granted in favor of the carrier, and it was held as a matter of law that the mother’s insurer did not owe defense or indemnification to the daughter arising out of the accident.

Anyone wishing to review the Court’s decision in this matter may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Aaron H.Weiss of the Pittsburgh law firm of Zimmer Kunz, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

No Coverage, No Bad Faith

In the case of Gerow v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Co., No. 3:17-cv-203 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2018 Gibson, J.), the federal court held that, where there is a findig of no coverage under a policy, a court is required to enter judgment in favor of the carrier on the companion bad faith claim. 

This matter arose out of a property damage case from a burst water pipe.  

The insurance policy at issue required continued residency as a condition for the coverage.   The facts confirmed that the insureds were not residing at the property at the time the water pipe burst. 

When the carrier refused to pay based upon the residency requirement under the policy, the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  

After ruling that there was no breach of the policy, the court went on to dismiss the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim as well.  

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

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum the writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog  (check it out HERE) and member of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention. 

Another Court Says No Bad Faith Where No Underlying Coverage Under Policy

In the case of Campbell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 2:18-cv-00292 (W.D. Pa. July 18, 2018 Hornak, J.), the court granted a carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit filed against the carrier for breach of contract for failing to pay for fire damage to the Plaintiff’s home and for bad faith related to an alleged denial of the claim for coverage without a legal basis to do so.  

The court ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to state a valid cause of action with regards to the breach of contract claim and the coverage issues presented in this fire loss case.  More specifically, the court found that the premises in question did not meet the policy definition of residential premises so as to entitle the insured to coverage under the policy.  

The court noted that, in light of the dismissal of the breach of contract claim after the finding of no coverage under the policy, the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim could not survive in the absence of any coverage under the policy.  As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint as dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum, the writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog and of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention. 

Click HERE to check out Attorney Applebaum's bad faith case law Blog.

Eastern Federal District Court Dismisses Post-Koken Bad Faith Claims and Claims of Failure of Carrier to Procure Insurance

In the case of Reidi v. GEICO, No. 16-6139 (E.D. Pa. April 11, 2017 Stengel, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court addressed a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant carrier in a post-Koken UIM matter involving claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and other claims.  

After a review of the record before it, the court granted the carrier’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for bad faith after finding that the Complaint set forth only conclusory allegations regarding bad faith.   The court noted that the legal recitations contained in the Plaintiff’s Complaint were not factual and, therefore, not entitled to the assumption of truth.  

The court otherwise indicated that there were no facts pled showing how GEICO lacked a reasonable basis for its decision not to pay UIM benefits or otherwise detailing the actions that GEICO or the Plaintiff took in pursuit of the claim.   Nor were there any facts alleged that specifically described what was unfair about GEICO’s denial in refusing to pay the benefits.

Accordingly, the court found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a plausible claim for bad faith. 

The court also granted GEICO’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and negligence claim based upon GEICO’s failure to procure an insurance policy for them.

In this matter, the Plaintiff got into a car accident the same day the vehicle was purchased.  Plaintiffs alleged that they made a telephone call to GEICO the day before they purchased the vehicle to ensure that the car that they were about to purchase would be covered.   The court noted that the Plaintiffs conceded that they did not actual purchase the car until after they called GEICO. 

The court noted that Pennsylvania law recognizes claims for failure to procure insurance and limited circumstances which were not found to be implicated in this matter as the Plaintiffs failed to allege any affirmative representations to procure insurance made by GEICO.  

Rather, the records before the court indicated that the Plaintiff alleged that a GEICO representative told the Plaintiff their insurance “would be stored electronically and that the Plaintiffs should contact GEICO once they actually purchase a vehicle and obtain a VIN number.”   Under such circumstances, the court stated that it cannot be said that GEICO assumed any duty to provide coverage to the Plaintiffs.  

Anyone wishing to read this decision online can click HERE.