CLAIM HANDLING REASONABLE + NO CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ON INTENT = NO BAD FAITH (Middle District)
Middle District Judge Conner closely examined the claims handling history before granting the insurer summary judgment on plaintiff’s bad faith uninsured motorist claim.
The record’s details show the claims handler actively investigating the claim and injuries, communicating with the insured’s counsel, and discussing the case with two other involved insurers as to their valuation before making a settlement offer. The settlement offer was a small fraction of the policy limit demand, but that could not create bad faith under the circumstances.
As the court stated,
At bottom, the record establishes nothing more than a legitimate disagreement over causation of [plaintiff’s] injuries and valuation of her claim. It is well settled that genuinely disputing causation and value is not tantamount to bad faith. That [the insurer] did not “immediately accede to” [a] demand for policy limits also is not, by itself, evidence of bad faith. … Nor does [the insured’s] belief that the preliminary offer was too low, without more, establish that [the insurer] acted unreasonably. … “[O]ur Courts have not recognized bad faith where the insurer makes a low but reasonable estimate of the insured’s losses.” … This is particularly true given that [the insurer] articulated legitimate reasons for doubting causation; reasonably concluded the claim would not pierce the limited-tort threshold; had not been advised of any wage-loss claim by [plaintiff’s] legal team; and, perhaps most importantly, made clear that its offer was not final.”
Judge Conner concluded that the insured “failed to identify any evidence—much less clear and convincing evidence—from which a reasonable juror could find that [the insurer] lacked a reasonable basis for its preliminary settlement offer.” Thus, the insured could not establish that the insurer’s conduct was unreasonable. Summary judgment was warranted for failing to meet this first element of statutory bad faith.
Judge Connor also addressed the knowing or reckless disregard element as well. The insured offered no clear and convincing evidence on intent to take an unreasonable position. The insured argued, in conclusory language, that “critical information” was withheld and “irrefutable proof” existed to prove intent; but there were no facts adduced from the record to support these assertions. The documents referenced that purportedly provided clear and convincing proof did not even exist at the time of the insurer’s purported bad faith settlement offer.
Thus, summary judgment also was warranted for this failure to make out the second bad faith element.
Date of Decision: March 15, 2021
Castillo v. Progressive Insurance, U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania No. 3:19-CV-1628, 2021 WL 963478 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2021) (Conner, J.)
