Daily Archive for July 9th, 2008

JULY 2008 BAD FAITH CASES
INSURED’S ATTORNEY SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITH REGARD TO BAD FAITH SUIT (Philadelphia Federal)

In Wirerope Works, Inc. v. Travelers Excess and Surplus Lines Company, plaintiff insured filed a bad faith suit against the insurer with regard to the adjusting of plaintiff’s fire insurance claim. The claim arose from a fire at a manufacturing facility. The claim was settled in part, yet the insured sought additional damages. The court permitted an extension in time for discovery in the hope that the parties would be able to discover what damages, if any, were in fact still due under the policy.

The court ordered the insured to provide answers to interrogatories, to produce documents, and to submit to a second deposition. The insured failed to comply, and the court held that this failure to comply was primarily the fault of the insured’s counsel. Sanctions against the insured’s counsel were given, but the bad faith claim was permitted to proceed.

Date of Decision: May 14, 2008

Wirerope Works, Inc. v. Travelers Excess & Surplus,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39469 (E.D. Pa. May 12, 2008)(Curtis Joyner, J.)

J.M.A.

JULY 2008 BAD FAITH CASES
COURT FOUND REMOVAL OF BAD FAITH CLAIM TO FEDERAL COURT WAS TIMELY (Western District)

The insured filed claims for bad faith, breach of contract, and unfair trade practices arising out of the insured’s claim for uninsured motorist coverage following the insured’s motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist.

The insured filed this complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County. The insurer then removed the action to federal court. The insurer then filed a motion to remand arguing that the insurer’s notice of removal was untimely.

While the insured agrees that the insurer filed the notice of removal within 30 days of the complaint, the insured argues that an “initial pleading” triggering the 30 day time period for removal was satisfied by the Writ of Summons, Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the insurer’s motion for reconsideration.

The court found that the insurer’s removal was timely because the notice was filed within 30 days of the filing of the complaint. Therefore the court denied the insured’s motion to remand and ordered an Initial Status Conference date.

Date of Decision: February 5, 2008

Wisinski v. Am. Commerce Group, Inc.,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8393 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2008)( Cohill Jr., J.)

J.M.A.