CJ Haddick Guests On A.M. Best’s “Updates In Insurance and Bad Faith Podcast”


A.M. Best has published the most recent episode of its Updates In Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith podcast earlier today, in which I discuss some recent developments in insurance coverage and bad faith law with the show’s host, John Czuba.  You can listen to the episode via the link below.

A transcript of the podcast can be found here:




PRESS RELEASE: Haddick Featured Guest on National AM Best Insurance Podcast




Contact:  Greta Kelly, Assoc. Marketing Director

Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote




Dickie McCamey Attorney Haddick is Featured Speaker on National Podcast

February 2018 (Harrisburg, PA) –  For Immediate Release – Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. attorney Charles E. Haddick, Jr. will be the featured speaker on A.M. Best’s monthly podcast, which airs February 28, on the Legal Talk Network. Haddick’s episode will focus on recent national trends in bad faith insurance coverage law.

Mr. Haddick is a shareholder of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and is the Location Chair of the Harrisburg office. He has practiced law for almost 30 years. He concentrates his practice in the areas of insurance coverage and insurance bad faith litigation; insurance fraud, arson, fire and explosion cases; cybersecurity and cyber insurance coverage and litigation; professional liability including insurance agency errors and omissions; subrogation; and general liability defense. Haddick is the author and editor of the legal insurance blog www.badfaithadvisor.com.

Mr. Haddick received his J.D. from The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University. He is AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated by Martindale-Hubbell® and he is also listed in Best Lawyers in America® for Insurance Law.

The Insurance Law Podcast examines timely insurance issues from an attorney’s point of view and is published by Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys. Guest speakers are prominent attorneys from across the United States who specialize in insurance defense. To listen or subscribe to the Insurance Law Podcast, click here.


About Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.: Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm providing comprehensive legal expertise in a multitude of practice areas. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and founded more than 100 years ago, the firm serves industry-leading clients across the country from offices throughout the mid-Atlantic region in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and West Virginia, the Southwestern region in California, and the Rockies in Colorado. For more information: 800-243-5412 or www.dmclaw.com.

17 Locations | 10 States | 1 Firm

Professional Liability Insurer Off The Hook For Settlement After Insured Fails To Obtain Consent To Settle, Ninth Circuit Rules


PASADENA, Jan. 19 – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a professional liability insurer had no obligation to fund a settlement agreed to by the insured, which did not obtain the insurer’s consent to the deal, as required in the policy.

In One West Bank, FSB v. Houston Casualty Co.,  Houston Casualty wrote a professional liability policy requiring the insured to seek prior written consent before resolving any covered claim by way of settlement.

The insured, One West, was sued for failure to properly administer loans it was servicing.  One West reached an agreement to settle with the plaintiff in the underlying case, but it neither sought or obtained  Houston Casualty’s written consent to the terms prior to executing the term sheet.  Applying California law, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that One West breached  prior written consent provision of the policy, thereby relieving Houston Casualty of its obligation to fund or cover the settlement.

In the ruling, while the Court recognized that an insured could be relieved of the consent obligation for  economic necessity, insurer breach, or other extraordinary circumstances, it affirmed the district court’s finding that no such circumstances existed.

Also, while One West alleged that Houston Casualty breached the insuring agreement and its common law obligation of good faith, the Court affirmed dismissal of those claims, ruling that there was no evidence that Houston Casualty withheld any benefits due under the policy, in light of the consent provision.

One West Bank, FSB v. Houston Casualty Co., 676 Fed.Appx. 664, 2017 WL 218900 (9th Cir., filed January 19, 2017).

Application Satisfies Requirement of Written Election of Lower UM/UIM Limits, Federal Court Finds


HARRISBURG, Dec. 29 – A U.S. District Court magistrate judge has ruled that an original signed application was  a valid means of choosing UM/UIM limits lesser than bodily injury limits under Pennsylvania’s motor vehicle law, even if a separate option selection form was not compliant with the statute.

In Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sechrist, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213618 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 29, 2017)(Arbuckle, M.J.), Plaintiff Farmland Mutual Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment suit  against Defendants Edward Alfred Sechrist and Gary Bryant Kauffman, employees of Farmland’s insured, Clouse Trucking, seeking a  ruling that the commercial automobile insurance policy issued with a $1 million liability limit  provided $35,000 of combined single limit coverage for underinsured motorist claims arising out of an accident on April 30, 2013 in which both Sechrist and Bryant were seriously injured.

The Employees opposed Farmland Mutual, contending that the UIM limit should be equal to the policy’s bodily injury liability limit of $1 millon, on grounds that there was not a valid election of lesser UIM coverage pursuant to the Pa.M.V.F.R.L.  The employees claimed that the insurance policy should be reformed to include one million dollars of underinsured motorist coverage because the requirement of a signed writing choosing reduced UIM coverage  under 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 1734 was not met.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle first agreed with the employees that a specific UIM option selection form did not comply with section 1734 and was therefore not a valid election of lesser coverage:

Section 1734 of the MVFRL allows a named insured to elect limits of underinsured motorist coverage in an amount equal to or less than a policy’s liability limit for bodily injury. 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 1734.   Absent a signed, written election for lesser coverage, it is presumed that the underinsured motorist coverage limit is the same as the bodily injury liability coverage limit. . .

The Underinsured Motorist Coverage Selection form in this case. . .    is signed by Mr. Clouse but does not expressly designate the amount of coverage requested. Accordingly, we find that this form does not satisfy the requirements of  75 Pa.C.S.A. section 1734.

Judge Arbuckle went on to find, however, that the original insurance application prepared by an insurance agent, and signed by Mr. Clouse selecting the lesser amount of coverage, did meet the requirement of a signed writing under section 1734:

The parties dispute whether the Insurance Policy Application in this case satisfies the writing requirement of section 1734. . . Farmland contends that the Farmland Policy Application signed by Mr. Clouse is a valid written election of lower coverage under section 1734. By contrast, the Employees contend that the Farmland Policy Application does not satisfy the requirements of section 1734 because: (1) the Farmland Policy Application does not advise Clouse Trucking of Farmland’s obligation to offer underinsured Motorist coverage limits equal to the Farmland Policy’s limit for bodily injury; and (2) the Farmland Policy Application is not a clear indication of Clouse Trucking’s intent to purchase a underinsured motorist coverage below the Farmland Policy limit for bodily injury because the blanks in the Farmland Policy Application were filled in by an insurance agent.

As an initial matter, I find that Farmland is correct that the Farmland  Policy Application meets the requirements of section 1734. The Farmland Policy Application  is signed by Mr. Clouse, and does request a specific amount of underinsured motorist coverage.

In short, Judge Arbuckle found that the policy documents, including the application, constituted a valid written request for reduced UIM coverage.  He also found that whether or not an insurance agent completed the application itself  was irrelevant, provided, as here, that the insured certified via signature his review and adoption of the statements contained in the application.

Farmland Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sechrist, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213618 (M.D. Pa., Dec. 29, 2017)(Arbuckle, M.J.)

Summary Judgment For Insurer In Super Storm Sandy Claim; Deposited Claim Check Constitutes Accord and Satisfaction


PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 17 – The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a day care center which submitted a Super Storm Sandy  claim for nearly a million dollars has accepted less than $30,000.00 from Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company in full satisfaction of the claim.

In Cranmer v. Harleysville Insurance Company et al,  2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23187 *; 2017 WL 5513204, the owners of Tiny Tots day care center submitted a claim for storm damages to PIIC for $956,455.09 for income loss, business interruption, and other related claims.  PIIC valued the claims at $28,542.84.  Ultimately, counsel for PIIC sent counsel for the insureds a letter which stated:

Accordingly, should I not hear from you within ten (10) days of your receipt of this correspondence, I will instruct [PIIC] to tender settlement in an amount of $28,542.84 payable to Tiny Tots Daycare Preschool, LLC and [RLF], its attorney. We will deem the acceptance of this payment as full and final settlement of this claim as well as a release by your client of any further demand for recovery as against Philadelphia Insurance Companies.

The insured endorsed and deposited the check, which was marked “FINAL,” and the comment line stated: “Business Income, windstorm damage, loss of income from the date of loss through the period of restoration.”  PIIC’s counsel also sent a general release to the insureds, however, which was never signed and returned.

The Plaintiffs sued PIIC for breach of contract and bad faith, and PIIC moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pa.  In affirming summary judgment in favor of the insurer, Judge Patty Schwartz held that the elements of an accord and satisfaction were met:

Under New Jersey law, the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction requires the defendant to prove: “(a) a bona fide dispute as to the   amount owed; (b) a clear manifestation of intent by the debtor to the creditor that payment is in satisfaction of the disputed amount; and (c) acceptance of satisfaction by the creditor. . . The undisputed record shows that the first accord and satisfaction requirement of a bona fide dispute was satisfied because PIIC and Plaintiffs disagreed about the amount to which Plaintiffs were entitled under the insurance policy. Plaintiffs submitted Sandy-related claims to PIIC for $956,455.09 while PIIC valued Plaintiffs’ loss at $28,542.84. . .

There is also no genuine dispute that PIIC intended its $28,542.84 payment to satisfy all of Plaintiffs’ Sandy-related claims against PIIC, thus satisfying the second element of accord and satisfaction. The August 15, 2013 letter states that PIIC will “tender settlement in an amount of $28,542.84 payable to Tiny Tots Daycare Preschool, LLC and [RLF], its attorney” and “deem the acceptance of this payment as full and final settlement of this claim as well as a release by [Plaintiffs] of any further demand   for recovery as against [PIIC].” App. 341. One month later, PIIC’s counsel sent RLF a check for $28,542.84, with an accompanying letter that incorporated by reference PIIC’s August 15, 2013 letter and stated that the $28,542.84 payment was tendered “in good faith for the purposes of settlement.” App. 345-46. In  addition, the check contained a claim number matching the Sandy claim that Plaintiffs submitted to PIIC, was marked “FINAL” in the payment line, and the comment line stated “Business Income, windstorm damage, loss of income from the date of loss through the period of restoration.” . . . The combination of the letters and the check demonstrate that PIIC intended to make a payment in full satisfaction of the claim, and Plaintiffs have identified no evidence to the contrary.

The Court also ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any bona fide evidence of bad faith on the part of PIIC, and affirmed summary judgment in favor of PIIC on the bad faith claims as well.

Cranmer v. Harleysville Insurance Company et al,  2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 23187 *; 2017 WL 5513204

Liquor Liability Exclusion In CGL Policy Unambiguous, Federal Judge Finds


PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 20 – A federal district judge has ruled that a liquor liability exclusion in a CGL policy is unambiguous, and relieved an insurer from the duty to defend or indemnify its insured in underlying liquor liability litigation.

In Transportation Ins. Co. V. Healthland Hosp. Group, No. 15-4525, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191951 (E.D.Pa. 2017), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pa. ruled that Transportation and CNA Insurance companies had no duty to defend or indemnity Healthland Hospitality, a group that operated bar service for the Woodbury Country Club.    Healthland was sued in state court after an over-served patron killed another motorist in a motor vehicle accident.

The exclusion in the CGL policy excluded defense or indemnity to Healthland for losses arising from:

“Bodily injury” or “property damage” for which any insured may be held liable by reason of:

(1) Causing or contributing to the intoxication of any person;

(2) The furnishing of alcoholic beverages to a person under the legal drinking age or under the influence of alcohol; or

(3) Any statute, ordinance or regulation relating to the sale, gift, distribution or use of alcoholic beverages.

This exclusion applies only if you are in the business of manufacturing, distributing, selling, serving or furnishing alcoholic beverages.

CNA denied coverage to Healthland, citing the exclusion.

Healthland argued in opposition, however,  that the exclusion’s  “in the business of” language was ambiguous.  The Court disagreed after the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment:

“Here, reading the relevant “in the business of” language in the context of the entire policy and the exclusion, it is clear that the provision is intended to distinguish an insured who occasionally serves alcohol from an insured who is involved with the service of alcohol with such regularity that the insured represents a significantly greater insurance risk. Indeed, numerous courts, including the Pennsylvania Superior Court, have reviewed identical or nearly identical liquor liability provisions and found them to not be ambiguous.”

Since the Court found the exclusion unambiguous, it found the underlying state court liquor liability litigation to be squarely within the exclusion, and held that CNA did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Healthland in those cases.  The Court granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment, and denied Healthland’s cross-motion for summary judgment on coverage.

Transportation Ins. Co. V. Healthland Hosp. Group, No. 15-4525, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191951 (E.D.Pa. 2017)


Liberty Mutual Wins Bad Faith Claim In Flood Loss Dispute


PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 15 – A Pennsylvania federal judge on Nov. 15 dismissed a bad faith claim against Liberty Mutual, finding that a dispute over the amount Liberty Mutual should pay over a flood loss was not sufficient to create a legitimate bad faith cause of action.

In Steven Barnwell, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, No. 16-4739, E.D. Pa.,  2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188427 (Beetlestone, J.), the Barnwells sued Liberty Mutual after a dispute arose over payment for an August 3, 2015 flood loss under the Barnewells’ homeowners policy with the insurer.  The home was under renovation at the time of the loss.

While the insurer made partial payment of the claim, the insureds sought further reimbursement and ultimately filed suit against Liberty Mutual in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pa.  In the proceeding, Liberty Mutual sought partial summary judgment on the bad faith claims.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted Liberty Mutual’s motion, observing that a mere dispute over the nature and extent of damage did not constitute bad faith on the part of the insurer:

“Plaintiffs’ do not point to any competent record evidence to subvert the restoration company’s determination that only one marble tile needed to be reinstalled. Plaintiff Barnwell himself testified at the arbitration hearing that only four to six of the tiles were ruined. Even so, neither Plaintiff contacted Liberty to tell it that there was more damage to the floor tiles than the restoration company had identified and that the cost of repair would, accordingly, be higher. Instead, they replaced the entire floor and asked Liberty to pay for it. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Liberty to deny benefits under the policy.”

Judge Beetlestone also held as a matter of law that Liberty’s positions on food loss and living expense reimbursement of the insureds were not so unreasonable as to create a genuine issue of fact regarding bad faith.

Finally, the Court ruled that Liberty’s withholding of depreciation allowance did not constitute bad faith either:

“By the terms of the policy, Liberty is not obligated to pay depreciation until repair or replacement is complete. Plaintiff has not pointed to record evidence that the repairs are complete or that it has notified Liberty that the repairs are complete. Absent such evidence, it was not unreasonable for Liberty to withhold payment to Plaintiffs for any deductions for depreciation.”

Steven Barnwell, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co, No. 16-4739, E.D. Pa.,  2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188427