PHILDADELPHIA, Dec. 11 – A Pennsylvania Federal judge has granted summary judgment in favor of Progressive Insurance in a bad faith case, finding in part that an electronic signature on a limited tort form was valid, and that use of a PRO medical review was also appropriate
In Jallad v. Progressive Advanced Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202999, Plaintiff Sahar Jallad (“Jallad”) filed suit against a motorist defendant and her own insurer, Progressive Advanced Insurance Company (“Progressive”) in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, alleging negligence against the motorist, Madera causing personal injuries, and claims of breach of contract and bad faith against Progressive related to its handling of Jallad’s underinsured motorist (“UIM”) claim.
Following removal of the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Robert F. Kelly granted Progressive’s motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claims.
Judge Kelly confirmed a long standing principle that the mere disagreement over the value of the insured’s injuries in the setting of a UIM claim was not a sufficient basis for a prima facie bad faith case against an insurer.
Judge Kelly went on to rule that none of four other arguments made by Jallad created a genuine issue of material fact as to the bad faith claims. First, Kelly ruled that regardless of whether or not the tortfeasor’s insurer paid a $15,000.00 liability limit insuring Madera, Progressive was entitled to a credit of that available limit toward the valuation of Jallad’s UIM claim.
Kelly further dismissed Jallad’s argument that her signature on a limited tort election was invalid:
“Jallad provides no citation to any case law or statute that prohibits insurance companies from obtaining electronic signatures for tort waiver forms. Further, Progressive responds that electronic signatures are permissible under both federal and Pennsylvania state law. See 15 U.S.C. § 7001; 73 P.S. § 2260.305. Accordingly, Jallad’s argument is without merit.”
Next, Judge Kelly ruled that Proressive’s use of a PRO reviews of Jallad’s medical records did not, as a matter of law, constitute bad faith:
“Pennsylvania law provides that “[i]nsurers shall contract jointly or separately with any peer review organization established for the purpose of evaluating treatment, health care services, products or accommodations provided to any injured person” and “[s]uch evaluation shall be for the purpose of confirming that such treatment, products, services or accommodations conform to the professional standards of performance and are medically necessary.” 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1797(b)(1). Under the circumstances presented here, we fail to see how sending medical documentation to a PRO to determine whether medical treatment conforms to the professional standards of performance or is medically necessary amounts to bad faith.”
The Court finally ruled that Progressive’s request for documents concerning Jallad’s wage information was appropriate, and dismissed Jallad’s bad faith claims with prejudice.
Jallad v. Progressive Advanced Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202999
badfaithadvisor.com 