INSURER’S COVERAGE DENIAL OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE AND THUS NO BAD FAITH IS POSSIBLE (Western District)
Western District Judge Hornak adopted Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation to grant the insurer summary judgment, in this underinsured motorist coverage breach of contract and bad faith case.
First, the breach of contract claim hinged on whether the insurer’s underinsured motorist coverage rejection form comported with Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL). The insured signed a form rejecting UIM coverage, but argued the form he signed did not meet the MVFRL’s requirements, and therefore should be deemed void.
The court rejected this argument, and found no UIM coverage due. The court also found that the failure to include a proper renewal notice regarding the rejection of UIM coverage was a violation of the MVFRL. Renewal notice MVFRL violations, however, have long been held not to provide a private remedy in the courts. Rather, any failure in the renewal form was solely for administrative review by the insurance department.
Thus, the insurer obtained summary judgment on the coverage claim.
In light of this ruling, the bad faith claim necessarily failed because there was an objectively reasonable basis to deny UIM coverage, since the insured himself had rejected UIM coverage. While there were some flaws in the claim adjuster’s manner of denying coverage, the fact is that the adjuster reached the correct conclusion that no coverage was due; and the carrier consistently took that position throughout, including an independent analysis by coverage counsel after the adjuster’s initial denial that no coverage was due.
Dates of Decision: July 12, 2021 (Report and Recommendation), August 2, 2021 (Order adopting Report and Recommendation)
Keeler v. Esurance Insurance Services, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 20-271 (W.D.Pa. July 12, 2021) (Kelly, M.J.) (Report and Recommendation), adopted by Order of the District Court (Aug. 2, 2021) (Hornak, J.)
Our thanks to Attorney Daniel Cummins, author of the excellent TortTalk Blog, for bringing this case to our attention.
