Defendant's Attorney: Brigid Quinn Alford and Christopher W. Woodward

Description: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued the Defendant on bad faith breach of insurance contract theories.

This is an action for uninsured motorist benefits. Plaintiff sued for benefits for himself and his wife, further claiming that his insurer acted in bad faith in denying him benefits.

* * *

Here, USAA represents that Plaintiffs failed to develop any record in support of their bad faith claim, despite bearing the burden of proving the claim at trial. See Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 182, 191 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Rancosky v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., 170 A.3d 364, 377 (Pa. 2017)) (stating that to prevail on a bad faith insurance claim under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must establish such a claim with “clear and convincing evidence”). Specifically, USAA points out that Plaintiffs never served any discovery requests, never deposed any USAA personnel, and never produced any expert reports pertinent to the issue of bad faith. Def.'s Mem., ECF 20-1 at 8. Plaintiffs fail to rebut USAA's characterization of the record in their opposition brief, and their brief's lack of any record citations reinforces USAA's point. In the absence of evidence, and Plaintiffs point to none, they cannot show a genuine dispute of fact, as required to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 201 (3d Cir. 2006) (emphasizing that the non-moving party must “rebut the motion with facts in the record and cannot rest solely on assertions made in the pleadings, legal memoranda, or oral argument.”).

* * *

To establish a claim under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he or she purchased or leased goods or services; (2) the goods or services were primarily for personal, family or household purposes; and (3) the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the defendant's unlawful, deceptive act. 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a). The UTPCPL applies to conduct surrounding the insurer's conduct in forming the contract. As a result, “[t]he UTPCPL applies to the sale of an insurance policy, it does not apply to the handling of insurance claims.” Wenk v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 228 A.3d 540, 550 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020). “Hence, an insured cannot bring an action under the UTPCPL based on the insurer's failure to pay a claim or to investigate a claim.” Kelly v. Progressive Advanced Ins. Co., 159 F.Supp.3d 562, 564-65 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (Savage, J.); see also Nordi v. Keystone Health Plan W., Inc., 989 A.2d 376, 385 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010); Horowitz v. Fed. Kemper Life Assur. Co., 57 F.3d 300, 307 (3d Cir.1995) (citing Gordon v. Pa. Blue Shield, 548 A.2d 600, 604 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)).

Outcome: Motion for summary judgment granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: