SCRANTON, June 13 — A federal judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed a number of breach of contract and bad faith claims, arising out of an auto insurance claim which the judge said was potentially barred by the policy’s household or regular use exclusions.
According to the opinion written by U.S. District Judge Richard P. Conaboy, Plaintiff Richard Myerski was involved in a car accident with an uninsured driver while Myerski was driving his mother’s car, which was insured through First Acceptance Insurance Co. Inc. Myerski was neither a named insured nor a member of his mother’s household at the time of the accident.
First Acceptance denied a claim for benefits with First Acceptance made by Myerski’s mother, however, contending that Myerski lived with Morris at the time of the accident, even though the police report listed Myerski at a different residence address. Myerski told the insurer he lived with his mother and drove the car “all the time.”
Myerski sued First Acceptance in the Lackawanna County, Pa., Court of Common Pleas, for breach of contract, bad faith, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, in addition to breach of contract and negligence claims. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and First Acceptance moved to dismiss good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, negligence and vicarious liability claims.
In granting the motion, Judge Conaboy held that dismissal of the bad faith claims were appropriate:
“[t]he facts alleged show that Defendants reasonably denied the claim for damage to the insured’s vehicle based on the policy exclusion: Plaintiff himself stated that he lived with his mother and drove the vehicle ‘all the time’…Even if there is evidence which could support a claim that Plaintiff mistakenly made the August 25, 2015, statement about his residence, Plaintiff does not point to evidence undermining his statement that he used the car ‘all the time,’ usage which would fall under the ‘regular or frequent operator’ exclusion. In fact, Plaintiff does not assert that this exclusion does not apply. Importantly, Defendants’ August 25, 2015, correspondence to Ms. Morris indicates there is no coverage for damage to her auto based on the exclusion set out above — it does not limit the application of the exclusion to Plaintiff’s place of residence. Given the admissions in Plaintiff’s statement and the basis for denial identified in Defendants’ August 25, 2015, correspondence, Plaintiff’s assertion that bad faith is evidenced by Defendants’ failure to properly investigate Plaintiff’s residence is not an accurate assessment of the bases upon which the exclusion may apply in this case. It follows that Defendants’ alleged refusal to further investigate Plaintiff’s residence and failure to pay for damage to Ms. Morris’ auto cannot be considered ‘frivolous or unfounded’ refusals.”
Judge Conaboy further wrote:
“Given the lack of factual support in the record supporting Plaintiff’s assertion of PIP [personal injury protection] and UM [underinsured motorist] claims at the early stage of the claims handling process, the fact that there is no evidence that Plaintiff sought clarification regarding PIP and UM coverage following the call where [First Acceptance claims adjuster Beverly] Bowers allegedly denied all claims, and the fact that the Police Report states that no one was injured and the other vehicle was insured, the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that Defendants acted in bad faith on the basis of Ms. Morris’ conversation with Ms. Bowers is lacking. Thus, I conclude the record does not provide the evidentiary requirements for establishing a bad faith claim during the initial period and Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim is properly dismissed.”
The Judge permitted breach of contract and statutory claims under the Pa.M.V.F.R.L to proceed, and permitted the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the bad faith allegations, though recognizing that doing so would likely be “futile.”