This will be the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog’s final post. Fineman, Krekstein & Harris partner Jay Barry Harris originated the idea for this Blog in 2006.  A superb lawyer and wonderful human being, may he rest in peace. Lee Applebaum has managed the Blog, and been its principal author, since our first post went online in June 2006.  A number of attorneys have contributed to the Blog over the years, and our thanks to all of them.  We especially note the contributions of Jennifer Tatum Root and Eric C. Rosenberg. It seems only fitting that we ..read more

This case involves first party property damage claims under a homeowners policy, arising from water damage after a hurricane. Ultimately, the insurer did not dispute the loss was covered under its policy, but there were delays and denials along the way. Further, the insured alleges full payment never was made, additionally resulting in other consequential damages. She sues for breach of contract and bad faith. The insurer moved to dismiss the bad faith claim only.  Eastern District Judge Padova denied that motion.  He looked at the complaint in its totality, and after drawing all rea ..read more

The insureds suffered damage to their motor home.  They allege that in initially looking of insurance coverage on the motor home, and inquiring with the insurer about its motor home insurance, the insurer represented there would be coverage for the type of loss at issue. Later, after the policy was issued and the loss actually occurred, the insurer “initially sent a claims adjuster who concluded that the damage was a covered loss under the policy, so Plaintiffs took the motor home to a qualified mechanic to perform repairs. Then, without explanation, [the insurer] sent a second claims adj ..read more

The excellent Tort Talk Blog has posted a summary of a Monroe County decision, allowing a bad faith claim to proceed past the summary judgment stage.  A summary of that decision denying the carrier’s summary judgment motion based on an issue of fact over coverage, and link to the decision, can be found on Tort Talk here ..read more

In seeking to limit the amount of coverage in this auto accident case, the insurer relied on a policy limitation/exclusion that was seemingly unambiguous. The trial court, however, found applying this exclusion would violate the insured’s reasonable expectations.  Thus, despite this unambiguous policy language, the trial court granted the insured summary judgment providing full coverage as if the exclusion did not exist.  The Appellate Division affirmed. The trial court, however, did reject the insured’s bad faith, punitive damage, and Consumer Fraud Act claims, despite ruling in the ..read more

The insurer removed this breach of contract and bad faith case, and the insured moved to remand on the basis the claims’ value did not exceed $75,000.  Western District Judge Fischer granted the motion. In diversity cases, the removing defendant bears the burden to show the claims exceed the jurisdictional minimum.  Courts in the Third Circuit apply the “legal certainty test”, i.e., “[t]he case will be dismissed only if from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed, or if, from the proofs, the court is satis ..read more

In this case, Philadelphia Federal Judge Baylson reiterates: Claims for breach of an insurance contract do not allow for recovery of attorney’s fees; rather, attorney’s fees in this context are only permitted under the Bad Faith Statute. Common law breach of an insurance contract claims do not allow for punitive damages; rather, punitive damages in this context are only permitted under the Bad Faith Statute. The Bad Faith Statute does not provide for recovery of compensatory damages. Date of Decision:  April 29, 2022 Collings v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., U.S. District Court Ea ..read more

The insured did not assert statutory bad faith in this UIM property damage case, but did assert violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).  In dismiss the UTPCPL claim, the court observed: “The insurance bad faith statute applies to post-contract formation conduct. The UTPCPL, on the other hand, applies to conduct surrounding the insurer’s pre-formation conduct. The UTPCPL applies to the sale of an insurance policy. It does not apply to the handling of insurance claims.” Date of Decision: April 28, 2022 Holovich v. Progressive Specialty Ins. C ..read more

Middle District Judge Mariani adopted and supplemented Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation in this Covid-19 business interruption loss matter.  The R&R concluded that no coverage was due on the Covid-19 loss claims. After citing some additional authority on why no coverage was due, Judge Mariani agreed the bad faith claim likewise could not stand: “With the foregoing determinations, Plaintiffs third objection regarding error in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s finding that Plaintiff did not present evidence of bad faith … is OVERRULED.” Date of Decision:  April 20, 202 ..read more

This marks our 1,900th post since 2006.  You can search all of these posts by word, phrase, judge’s name, etc. on the Blog’s search function.  We also have tens and tens of categories with case links organizing the cases by topic, which are one click away. This is our second New Jersey fraud in the application/rescission case summary posted this week. In this case, two people purchased an investment rental property.  In purchasing insurance, the application represented only one of the two owned the entire property.  Subsequently, the two individuals formed an LLC and transf ..read more