Category: Pennsylvania

Fear Not: Withdrawing A Defense Following Reservation Of Rights

Photo by Esdras Jaimes on Pexels.com

I recently had an insured’s attorney tell me, with a straight face (I’m assuming it was straight — it was hard to tell on the phone) that the insurance company I represented on a coverage matter could not withdraw a defense to his client because, counsel claimed, the insurer had already agreed to provide a defense under a reservation of rights, and the insurer “can’t change its mind.”

In fairness, this claim can, under certain very limited circumstances, actually be true! But the set of circumstances under which it can be true is dwarfed by the set of circumstances under which it is likely not true. And so, without further delay, a quick refresher on how an insurer can properly and lawfully withdraw a defense after initially agreeing to provide one pursuant to a reservation of rights.

The majority of this post assumes that the defense which the insurer would like to withdraw is being provided pursuant to a reservation or rights. After all, why would an insurer reserve rights in the first place if it did not, on occasion, intend to lawfully exercise those rights? This post further assumes some development has occurred which justifies the insurer’s change in position. A common example of this is when covered counts in a complaint against an insured are dismissed from an action, leaving only claims which are not covered by the policy in question.

Reserving rights before a defense is withdrawn is the better practice by far. But there is some authority suggesting that a predicate reservation of the right to withdraw a defense is not strictly required in order to subsequently withdraw that defense if the circumstances justify it, and the insurer is not contractually obligated to defend or indemnify. See, e.g., Windt, Allan. 1 Insurance Claims and Disputes § 4:29 (6th ed.). The theory behind this proposition is that the insuring agreement either requires defense and indemnity or it does not. Did I mention, however, that reserving rights is the better practice by far? I did? Good.

Some insurers will ask from time to time whether a declaratory judgment action should be filed in a given case in order to properly withdraw a defense. Generally, and in Pennsylvania, for example, a declaratory judgment action is not a prerequisite to withdrawing a defense. See, Selective Way Ins. Co. v. Hosp. Grp. Servs., Inc., 2015 Pa. Super. 146, 119 A.3d 1035, 1052 (2015). While doing so may be advisable in certain cases, it is not a black letter requirement. (I recently addressed the subject of when and why to file declaratory judgment actions here).

So how is withdrawal done in a way to avoid or minimize both the hassle, and the cost and expense of not doing so properly? Here are a few important basics.

The Golden Rule

“Thou Shalt Not Prejudice The Insured.”

The Golden Rule of Withdrawing A Defense

Everybody knows, or should know, this one. It is the Alpha and the Omega of deciding whether, when, and how to withdraw a defense which had been provided under a reservation of rights. A few observations are, however, in order.

Prejudice must most often be actual and demonstrable — there must be some harm occasioned to the insured which would make withdrawing improper. And in the vast majority of cases, claims of prejudice are tied to when in a civil proceeding the defense is withdrawn. A simple guideline: the later in a case a defense is withdrawn, the bigger the risk of prejudice to the insured, and the more dangerous a withdrawal can be for the insurer.

The underlying case may reach a point of such progress, however, that prejudice will be presumed, and an insurer will be estopped from withdrawing a defense. The clearest example of this is an insurer’s attempt to withdraw a defense after it has defended the insured to verdict. This, to use a legal term, is a “big no-no,” and my eloquent legal advice on this subject is, “don’t do that.” See, e.g., Treadways LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 467 Fed. Appx, 143, 148 (3d Cir. 2012).

There are several miscellaneous points to make as part of the prejudice discussion. First, the naked claim that an insured is prejudiced by a withdrawal of a defense because it must now pay for its own defense is not sufficient justification to prevent an insurer from withdrawing. This is no more a justification to obligate an insurer to defend than is the reverse claim by the insurer to relieve itself of the duty to defend. Legal fees are not sufficient justification in and of themselves to carry the day, for the insured or the insurer.

A second lesser, but still important, point is that insurers can reduce their exposure to prejudice claims after deciding to withdraw a defense by assisting the insured with a soft landing and transition. An insurer can offer to make insurance defense counsel available, at the insurer’s expense, to the insured’s personal counsel for a window of 30 to 45 days, for example, to assist personal counsel with the assumption of the insured’s defense. It can also and should also ensure that the insured’s litigation file, electronic and/or hard copy is properly transferred to new counsel. Nothing, I advise insurers, evaporates prejudice claims better than actively working to prevent even the appearance of prejudice after the decision to withdraw.

There can never be any guarantees that insurers won’t face claims of “you can’t change your mind” by disgruntled insureds, or their lawyers, once the decision to withdraw a defense has been taken. However, as one Court has observed, “There is no principle of Pennsylvania law that the duty to defend automatically attaches at the outset of the litigation and cannot afterwards terminate.” Com. Union Ins. Co. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 789 F.2d 214, 217–18 (3d Cir. 1986).

Withdrawing a defense following a reservation of rights can be done without adverse consequence or penalty. It just has to be done properly.

Advertisement

Covid-19 Business Interruption Insurance Coverage Update

I recently sat down with Bob Oltmanns of the DMC Report to discuss recent developments in Pennsylvania and nationally regarding Covid-19 business interruption insurance coverage claims. Soundcloud link provided below.

Failure To Comply With Pa.M.V.F.R.L. Renewal Notice Requirements Not Bad Faith, Pa. Federal Judge Rules

Pittsburgh, July 12th. A federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted summary Judgment to an auto insurer in a coverage and bad faith case, ruling that in the presence of a valid UM/UIM rejection by the insured, subsequent non-compliance with the renewal notice requirements of the Pa.M.V.F.R.L. neither provided the basis for policy reformation, nor a bad faith claim.

In a ruling by Magistrate Judge Kelly, adopted by Judge Hornak, the court found that the insurer’s failure to include a proper renewal notice regarding the rejection of UIM coverage was a violation of the MVFRL. It also found, however that such violations do not allow private civil remedy, beyond administrative review, and such a violation could neither form the basis of reformation of the policy, or of a bad faith cause of action

The court also found that since there had been a prior valid rejection of UM/UIM coverage by the insured, the claims adjuster’s denial of a claim for such benefits was objectively reasonable.

Keeler v. Esurance, U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania No. 20-271 (W.D.Pa. July 12, 2021) (Kelly, M.J.) Link: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-pawd-2_20-cv-00271/USCOURTS-pawd-2_20-cv-00271-0

Pa. Supreme Court Holds Household Exclusion Unenforceable In Auto Policy With Stacked UM/UIM Benefits

alert

Pittsburgh, Jan. 23 – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a household exclusion in an auto insurance policy was unenforceable because it impermissibly took stacked UM/UIM benefits away from the insured in violation of the Pa. Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (Pa.M.V.F.R.L.).

In Gallagher v. Geico Indem. Co., the Pa. Supreme Court reversed both trial court and the Pa. Superior Court’s grant of Summary Judgment to Geico, in a case where Geico sought to disallow $200,000 in stacked UM/UIM benefits in an automobile policy covering two vehicles  owned by the insured, Gallagher.  Gallagher also had a separate  motorcycle policy with UM/UIM  limits of $50,000.00, also issued by Geico.

Gallagher was injured in an August 12, 2012 motorcycle accident, and was paid by both the tortfeasor, and by Geico in the amount  of  $50,000.00  which was the UM/UIM limit under the motorcycle policy.  Gallagher sought the additional $200,000.00 in stacked UM/UIM coverage under the auto policy, but Geico denied that claim on the grounds that the auto policy contained a household vehicle exclusion, which provided:

“This coverage does not apply to bodily injury while occupying or from being struck by a vehicle owned or leased by you or a relative that is not insured for Underinsured Motorists Coverage under this policy.”

Gallagher filed suit against Geico, claiming that Geico placed Gallagher’s motorcycle and automobiles on separate policies, and that he paid for the stacked UM/UIM benefits under his auto policy.

Geico won summary judgment in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas based on the exclusion, and the Superior Court affirmed.  On appeal to the state Supreme Court, however, the court, per Justice Baer, reversed in a 5-2 ruling, holding that the household exclusion violated section 1738(b) of the Pa.M.V.F.R.L., which requires that stacked UM/UIM benefits be waived in writing.  Justice Baer wrote that Gallagher did not waive stacking under his auto policy, and that he was entitled to those  benefits, thereby barring application of the household vehicle exclusion.  Of the exclusion, Justice Baer wrote:

“This policy provision, buried in an amendment, is inconsistent with the unambiguous requirements Section 1738 of the MVFRL under the facts of this case insomuch as it acts as a de facto waiver of stacked UIM coverage provided for in the MVFRL, despite the indisputable reality that Gallagher did not sign the statutorily-prescribed UIM coverage waiver form. Instead, Gallagher decided to purchase stacked UM/UIM coverage under both of his policies, and he paid GEICO premiums commensurate with that decision. He simply never chose to waive formally stacking as is plainly required by the MVFRL.”

The Court therefore reversed and remanded the Superior Court ruling, sending the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Justice Wecht filed a dissenting opinion, in which he criticized the majority for conflating the stacking waiver provisions of section 1738 with  the entirely  separate question operation of a policy exclusion, arguing that nothing in the Pa.M.V.F.R.L. precluded the valid operation of the household vehicle exclusion.  Justice Wecht also warned against the dangerous implication of the majority ruling, and the use of section 1738 to invalidate all UM/UIM exclusions, essentially allowing a waiver provision to trump the terms and conditions of the policy language.

Finally, Justice Wecht wrote that the majority decision violated earlier state Supreme Court precedent in Erie Exchange v. Baker, 601 Pa. 355, 972 A.2d 507, in which the Court made a clear distinction between the primacy of the nature, scope, and extent of UM/UIM coverage as set down in an insurance policy (and its limitations and exclusions), and the secondary consideration of whether coverage, if not otherwise limited or excluded,  should be stacked, unstacked or waived.

Gallagher v. Geico, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 345 (January 23, 2019, Baer, J.)

State Auto Had Reasonable Basis To Deny Pipe Burst Claim, Federal Court Rules; Contract and Bad Faith Claims Dismissed

pipe%20leak%203

PITTSBURGH, Oct. 11 – A federal judge has ruled that State Auto Insurance Company was entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract and bad faith claims arising out of a water loss because the insureds violated a continuous occupation provision contained in their homeowners policy.

In Gerow v. State Auto, U.S. District Judge Kim Gibson found that State Auto was not liable to pay the water loss claim, and it could also therefore not be liable for acting in bad faith toward the insured plaintiffs in the case.  The case was originally filed in Pa. state court but removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pa.

On January 16, 2016, the Gerows suffered a pipe burst water loss at the insured premises, insured by State Auto.  State Auto denied the claim, however, pursuant to an investigation which determined that the house in question was not occupied at the time of the loss,  in violation of the terms of subject homeowners policy which required continuous occupancy.  After State Auto denied the claim, the insureds filed breach of contract and bad faith claims against the insurer.  After the case was removed to federal court, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment as to both claims.

Judge Gibson found that the insureds did not meet the continuous residency  condition of the policy, and that State Auto had not waived the provision.  He therefore granted summary judgment on the coverage claim to State Auto.

The insureds argued they could still maintain a bad faith action against the insurer however, claiming that State Auto erroneously advised them to seek water remediation and then denied coverage, and failed to inform them that they were not complying with the residency requirement.

Judge Gibson dismissed these arguments, however, after employing the traditional Pennsylvania two part bad faith test — whether the insurer’s position lacked a reasonable basis, and whether it knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of basis.  Judge Gibson wrote that State Auto:

“clearly had a reasonable basis for denying coverage for the Subject Loss: the Policy required Plaintiffs to reside at the Subject Property, and Defendant concluded, after an investigation, that Plaintiffs did not reside there, a conclusion with which this Court agrees…[Therefore, State Auto] could not have known or recklessly disregarded a lack of reasonable basis.”

Judge Gibson also relied in part on a prior Western District ruling which precluded a bad faith claim from proceeding when a lack of coverage was found.

Gerow v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Co., U. S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania Case No. 3:17-cv-203, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175007 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2018) (Gibson, J.)

Bad Faith Claims Against Individual Claims Adjuster Arising Out of UM/UIM Claim Dismissed By Federal Judge

ACCIDENT

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 9 –  A bad faith action against an individual claims adjuster has been dismissed by a U.S. District Court Judge, who found that the joinder of the adjuster  in a coverage and bad faith action arising out of a UM/UIM claim was done fraudulently to defeat federal removal jurisdiction.

In Reto v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage denied Retos’ motion to remand the Retos’ case to state court after Liberty Mutual removed the case, contending that the joinder of Liberty Mutual adjuster Stephania DeRosa was fraudulent for the purposes of destroying federal diversity jurisdiction.

Judge Savage noted that Liberty met its burden in opposing the motion for remand:

“[the]removing party has a heavy burden of persuading a court that joinder is fraudulent….[however] the claims against [the claim representative] are wholly insubstantial and frivolous…there is no basis to support a contract [against the claims handler, and] only the principal [Liberty Mutual] may be held liable.”

Judge Savage ruled that the claim representative was only an agent, without a stand-alone contract with the insured.  Finally, the Court held that the Pa. Bad Faith Statute did not apply to claims representatives, but rather only to insurers.  Accordingly, Judge Savage dismissed Ms. DeRosa as a defendant, and denied the Retos’ motion to remand the case to state court.

Reto v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-2483, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133336 (E.D. Pa. Aug., 8, 2018) (Savage, J.)

Third Circuit Continues To Rule Faulty Workmanship Not Covered By CGL Policy

  con3

PHILADELPHIA, JUNE  6 – The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals  has recently affirmed a ruling in favor of Selective Way Insurance Company, holding that Selective does not have a duty to defend or indemnify an insured contractor for claims of faulty workmanship arising out of a ondominium construction project. 

In Lenick Construction, Inc. v Selective Way Insurance Company, Lenick was impleaded as a third-party defendant in litigation as the general contractor, Westrum, for defects at the Villas at Packer Park Condominium project.   Lenick notified Selective after it was joined,  seeking defense and indemnity and, while denying the request for indemnity, Selective agreed to defend Lenick in the case under a reservation of rights. 

Lenick sued Selective in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaratory judgment obligating Selective to provide defense and indemnity from Selective , after which Selective removed the action to federal court.  Thereafter, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. 

In affirming the US District Court’s conclusion that the allegations against Lenick were not covered by the CGL policy issued to Lenick by Selective, the Third Circuit relied upon Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 589 Pa. 317, 908 A.2d 888, 896-97 (Pa. 2006) and held that the claims in the Joinder Complaint against Lenick did not allege a fortuitous “occurrence” such that the claim would be covered.  In the Opinion written by Chief Judge Hardiman, the Court held that a fair reading of the Complaint against Lenick was that Lenick was guilty of faulty workmanship. 

While Lenick contended that some of the damage to its work occurred as a result of the faulty workmanship of other contractors such that an occurrence could be found, the Court disagreed, referring again to the underlying complaint against Lenick which alleged Lenick’s faulty workmanship, not that Lenick’s work was damaged by the faulty workmanship of others.  Summary judgment in favor of Selective was therefore affirmed.

Lenick Constr., Inc. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197, 2018 WL 2727394

 

 

Keeping the “I” In IME: Pa. Supreme Court Refuses To Overturn Order Barring Plaintiff’s Lawyer From Portions of Neuropsych IME

Witness_stand_in_a_courtroom

HARRISBURG, Jan. 18 –  Defendants in Pennsylvania civil personal injury litigation may have gotten a bit more incentive to try to keep independent medical exams free of interference by Plaintiffs’ lawyers.  This week, the Pa. Supreme Court quashed an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order barring the plaintiff’s counsel from attending parts of his client’s neuropsychological IME or recording the exam.

In Shearer v. Hafer, 2018 Pa. Lexis 353, the Pa. Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal  to consider whether a plaintiff in a civil personal injury action has the right to have counsel present and to record a neuropsychological examination of that plaintiff by a defendant’s neuropsychologist.  At the trial court level in Shearer, a Lebanon County judge issued a protective order ruling that the personal injury Plaintiff’s counsel could be present during the preliminary interview phase of the exam, but that no individual would be permitted in the evaluation room with Mrs. Shearer and the doctor during the standardized testing portion of the evaluation.  The order also provided that  the evaluation could not  be recorded.

On appeal to the Pa. Superior Court, the court affirmed the trial court ruling after finding that the order in question was collateral and properly appealable.   The Plaintiff then sought an allowance of appeal from the state Supreme Court.

In a 6-1 ruling,  the Pa. Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court ruling, and quashed the appeal, finding that an appeal from  the order in question was an unauthorized interlocutory appeal.  In writing for the majority, Justice Sandra McCloskey Todd analyzed the order under a three-part test for the appealability of interlocutory orders.

While finding that the order was separable from the main cause of action of the automobile accident case, thus satisfying the first prong of the analysis, Justice Todd found that the second and third elements of the analysis were not met.  As to the second element, the Court found that the interests in question would not go unprotected without immediate appellate review.  As to the third prong, The Court also found that the right asserted, i.e., to counsel at the entire IME,  would not be irretrievably lost, as the Plaintiff could obtain a new trial following an appeal at the end of the case.

The Court went to some length to discuss that the right of counsel at an IME was not a constitutional one, but rather one granted in the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure,  Pa.R.C.P. 4010.  Those rules also provide that trial courts can craft protective orders in discovery to balance and accommodate the interests of competing litigants, via Pa.R.C.P. 4012.

While the Supreme Court did not address the merits of the protective order itself, the ruling suggests that if a protective order limiting the participation of the Plaintiff’s lawyer at an IME can be secured from the trial court,  the benefits of such an order are not likely to be disturbed by interlocutory appeal.

 

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

insurance%20coverage-x

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.)

Electronic Signature On Limited Tort Form and Medical Peer Review Both Valid; Court Dismisses Bad Faith Claims Against Progressive

insurance%20coverage-x

 

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

%d bloggers like this: