PITTSBURGH, Jan. 10 – A federal judge from the Western District of Pa. has dismissed both bad faith and coverage claims in which a homeowner sought coverage for defective workmanship on the home as part of a demolition and rebuild.
In Wehrenberg v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-1477, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3242 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2017), U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornack granted summary judgment to Metropolitan P&C Insurance Company on both breach of contract and bad faith claims brought by insured homeowner, Wehrenberg. leased the house to a tenant, Hyatt, and authorized Hyatt to demolish and reconstruct the house.
Hyatt abandoned the house after gutting it, and the house, which had structural problems, was left unfinished. Wehrenberg submitted a claim the Metropolitan regarding the condition of the house, calling it “vandalism.” Metropolitan denied the claim and Wehrenberg filed suit, claiming both breach of contract and bad faith.
Relying on policy language, Metropolitan moved for summary judgment on all claims on the following grounds: (1) the loss was not “sudden and accidental direct physical loss or damage” under the terms of the Policy, (2) even if the loss is covered, the insured did not timely notify Metropolitan of the loss, and (3) the damages claimed were explicitly excluded from coverage under the Policy, which did not cover construction related damage, and stated that the insurer was not responsible to pay for vandalism if the property was vacant for more than thirty days.
In granting the motion for Metropolitan, Judge Hornak held:
“First, the Court concludes that Plaintiff cannot, on the record before the Court, meet his burden of proving that his loss is covered by his Policy in the first instance. The Policy specifically provides that Defendant will only cover “sudden and accidental direct physical loss or damage to [Plaintiff’s] property.”. . . Under Pennsylvania law, “sudden and accidental” “mean, respectively, ‘abrupt’ and ‘unexpected or unintended.'” U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelman Bottles, 538 F. App’x 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2013).”
The judge also dismissed the bad faith claims made by the insured, holding:
“In this case, as explained, there is no viable breach of contract claim, so the first part of Plaintiff’s bad faith claim cannot succeed. Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to adequately investigate his claim. In his papers, Plaintiff lists a variety of ways in which he asserts Defendant’s investigation was inadequate, including that Defendant did not conduct enough interviews to uncover the facts of the case and that Defendant did not look into allegedly stolen tiles brought into the house. ECF No. 88 at 12. Defendant however, asserts that an adequate investigation was conducted and that it included an inspection of the house, interviews of Plaintiff and Hyman, consultation with its legal counsel, and the taking of Plaintiff’s Examination Under Oath. ECF No. 82 at 20. Plaintiff’s claim ultimately fails because he has not cited to anything in the record to support his argument—he merely alleges problems existed without providing any record evidence to prove them.”