Search
Categories:
- NJ - Agents and Administrators (11)
- NJ - Attorney Client Privilege (7)
- NJ - Attorney's Fees (26)
- NJ - Bifurcate/Sever & Stays (16)
- NJ - Choice/Conflict of Law (3)
- NJ - Claims Handling (general) (31)
- NJ - Claims Handling (reasonable) (11)
- NJ - Claims Handling (unreasonable) (11)
- NJ - Conflict of interest (1)
- NJ - Consumer Fraud Act (10)
- NJ - Cooperation with insurer (1)
- NJ - Coverage Issues (39)
- NJ - Damages (1)
- NJ - Declaratory Judgment (9)
- NJ - Delay (Insured) (3)
- NJ - Delay (Investigation/Claims handling) (12)
- NJ - Delay (Payment) (4)
- NJ - Discovery and Evidence (13)
- NJ - ERISA Preemption (7)
- NJ - Estimates, Valuation or Appraisal (8)
- NJ - Experts (9)
- NJ - Federal Pleading Adequate (7)
- NJ - Federal Pleading Inadequate (14)
- NJ - General Bad Faith and Litigation Issues (40)
- NJ - Law unsettled (4)
- NJ - Limitations Period (4)
- NJ - Litigation Conduct (1)
- NJ - Negligence not bad faith (14)
- NJ - No coverage due, no bad faith (20)
- NJ - Procedural Issues (40)
- NJ - Punitive Damages (12)
- NJ - Reinsurance (1)
- NJ - Removal & Remand (3)
- NJ - Reservation of Rights (2)
- NJ - Reverse Bad Faith (30)
- NJ - Settlement related issues (23)
- NJ - Standing, Assignment or Outside Scope (9)
- NJ - Sureties (3)
- NJ - Sworn Statement/EUO (2)
- NJ - UIM/UM Cases (15)
- NJ - Work Product (4)
- NJ -ITPA and UCSPA (14)
- PA - Agents and Administrators (39)
- PA - Attorney Client Privilege (46)
- PA - Attorney's Fees (47)
- PA - Bifurcate/Sever & Stays (56)
- PA - Choice/Conflict of Law (22)
- PA - Claims Handling (general) (134)
- PA - Claims Handling (reasonable) (143)
- PA - Claims Handling (unreasonable) (91)
- PA - Common Law Bad Faith (contractual or fiduciary basis) (132)
- PA - Communication with insured (48)
- PA - Conflict of Interest (9)
- PA - Cooperation with insurer (19)
- PA - Coverage Issues (145)
- PA - Damages (3)
- PA - Declaratory Judgment (34)
- PA - Delay (Insured) (33)
- PA - Delay (Investigation/Claims handling) (95)
- PA - Delay (Payment) (48)
- PA - Discovery and Evidence (159)
- PA - ERISA Preemption (34)
- PA - Estimates, Valuation or Appraisal (86)
- PA - Experts (83)
- PA - Federal Pleading Adequate (91)
- PA - Federal Pleading Inadequate (109)
- PA - General Bad Faith and Litigation Issues (91)
- PA - Insurer wrong, but reasonable (13)
- PA - Late notice (5)
- PA - Law unsettled (18)
- PA - Limitations Period (68)
- PA - Litigation Conduct Claims (32)
- PA - Manuals (23)
- PA - Mediation (15)
- PA - MVFRL (39)
- PA - Negligence not bad faith (46)
- PA - No coverage due, bad faith still possible (35)
- PA - No coverage duty, no bad faith (139)
- PA - Procedural Issues (102)
- PA - Punitive Damages (49)
- PA - Red flags during investigation (11)
- PA - Reinsurance (13)
- PA - Release of bad faith claim (10)
- PA - Removal & Remand (86)
- PA - Reservation of Rights (20)
- PA - Reserves (35)
- PA - Reverse Bad Faith (67)
- PA - Settlement related issues (111)
- PA - Standing, Assignment or Outside Scope (76)
- PA - Sureties (10)
- PA - Sworn Statement/EUO (27)
- PA - UIM/UM Cases (306)
- PA - UIPA & UCSP (68)
- PA - Underwriting (10)
- PA - UTPCPL (34)
- PA - Venue (15)
- PA - Who is an Insurer? (24)
- PA - Work Product (34)
Links of Note
- Article: What is the Nature and Scope of the "Bad Faith" Conduct that can be Remedied Directly Under the Bad Faith Statute (2014)
- Business Courts Blog
- Fineman Krekstein & Harris, Philadelphia Insurance Bad Faith and Coverage Lawyers
- New Jersey Fraud Prevention Act
- NJ Unfair Insurance Practices Statute
- Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Statute
- Post Koken Scorecard in UM/UIM Cases - Tort Talk (Pennsylvania Tort Law Blog)
- Searching on this Blog
- Toy v Metropolitan
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Regs
Subscribe by Email
Signup to receive e-mail notifications about future blog posts.
0 Responses to “APRIL 2014 BAD FAITH CASES: AFTER FINDING INSURER IMPROPERLY DENIED COVERAGE, COURT FOUND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON BAD FAITH CLAIM PREMATURE, AS THE RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE IF THE INSURER ACTED WITH KNOWLEDGE OR RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE LACK OF A REASONABLE BASIS FOR DENYING THE INSUREDS’ CLAIM (New Jersey Federal)”