NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 16 affirmed a district court’s dismissal of an amended complaint filed by insureds seeking damages as a result of defective concrete used in their home’s foundation because the insureds failed to carry their burden of proving that coverage is afforded under the policy and that the insurer acted in bad faith when it denied their claim (Joseph Mazzarella, et al. v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., No. 18-1269, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14719).
PITTSBURGH — An insured seeking coverage for pollution costs and damages caused by a gas well that spewed drilling fluid and fracking materials above the surface of the ground claims in a May 15 complaint filed in Pennsylvania state court that its insurers breached their contract and acted in bad faith in denying coverage for the more than $40 million in damages incurred by the insured (CNX Gas Co. LLC v. Lloyd’s of London, et al., No. GD-19-007029, Pa. Comm. Pls., Allegheny Co.).
LOS ANGELES — A disability claimant’s suit seeking benefits under an individual disability income policy and alleging claims for breach of contract and bad faith must be removed to California federal court because the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional minimum of $75,000, the insurer maintains in a May 14 notice of removal (Julie Borba, M.D. v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-4172, C.D. Calif.).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania Superior Court panel on May 13 ruled that a state trial court abused its discretion in granting an insurer’s summary judgment motion in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against its insureds because the insurer failed to show that it was prejudiced by the insurers’ numerous delays in litigating the action over the course of 16 years (Benjamin A. Wilson, et al. v. Erie Insurance Group, et al., No. 717 WDA 2018, Pa. Super., 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1867).
NEWARK, N.J. — A New Jersey federal judge on May 14 granted an auto insurer’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim after determining that the insured and medical providers seeking payment under the auto policy failed to sufficiently and clearly allege a breach of contract (Janine Banks v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-17117, D. N.J., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81005).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge on May 10 denied a motion to dismiss an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith claims after determining that the insured sufficiently alleged facts to support the claims (Andre Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al., No. 18-7551, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79664).
OKLAHOMA CITY — An insured’s bad faith claim against an auto insurer must be dismissed because the insured failed to allege sufficient facts in support of her allegation that the insurer acted unreasonably in handling her claim for benefits under her auto policy, an Oklahoma federal judge said May 13 (Tallie McKinney v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-767, W.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80538).
LAS VEGAS — An insured’s claims alleging bad faith and unfair claims practices against an auto insurer must be dismissed without prejudice because the insured failed to allege sufficient facts in support of the claims, a Nevada federal judge said May 10 in granting the auto insurer’s motion to dismiss (Melissa Alele v. Geico General Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-1757, D. Nev., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79779).
DES MOINES, Iowa — Under Iowa law, a majority of the state’s high court on May 10 ruled that a common-law cause of action for bad faith failure to pay workers’ compensation benefits is not available against a workers’ compensation insurer’s third-party claims administrator (Samuel De Dios v. Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, et al., No. 18-1227, Iowa Sup., 2019 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 56).
PITTSBURGH — A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania on April 17 ruled that an insurer is not entitled to summary judgment on a bad faith claim made by its insured in an automobile insurance dispute because triable issues of material fact exist as to whether the insurer handled the insured’s uninsured motorist (UM) claim in bad faith (Shawn P. Lewis v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., No. 17-1409, W.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65264).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A life insurance policy beneficiary has failed to conclusively establish that insurers and their affiliates’ denial of benefits and rescission of policies were in bad faith, and the defendants have sufficiently shown that because the policies were rescinded, no contract for which the plaintiff is a beneficiary exists and, thus, there is no potential for coverage, a federal judge in California ruled April 25 (Daniel Jang v. Sagicor Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-1563, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70319).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — An insured’s second amended complaint in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit fails to cure the pleading deficiencies that led to the dismissal of her first amended complaint, insurers argue in an April 5 motion to dismiss filed in New Mexico federal court (Yvonne Apodaca v. Young America Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-399, D. N.M.).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — The Fourth District Florida Court of Appeal on May 8 reversed a trial court’s ruling in favor of an insurer in a water damage suit after determining that the insurer’s payment of an appraiser’s award constitutes a confession that it breached the policy and that genuine issues of fact remand as to whether the insurer acted in bad faith in handling the insureds’ claim (Hershel Bryant, et al. v. Geovera Specialty Insurance Co., No. 4D18-189, Fla. App., 4th Dist., 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 7161).
LAS VEGAS — A Nevada federal judge on May 7 dismissed an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit filed against an auto insurer because the insured failed to comply with a court order and has not participated in the suit in approximately nine months (Santoro Hill v. Geico Casualty Insurance Co., No. 18-1328, D. Nev., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77471).
PHOENIX — Summary judgment in an insurance breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit is necessary because a plaintiff failed to provide evidence sufficient for a jury to determine that an insurer acted in bad faith when it denied coverage to an insured under a business auto liability provision of a general liability insurance policy, a federal judge in Arizona ruled April 23 (James McGee v. Zurich American Insurance Co., No. 17-4024, D. Ariz., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68673).
DENVER — An insured sufficiently alleged facts in support of her allegation that an auto insurer acted in bad faith in handling a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, a Colorado federal magistrate judge said May 6 in denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment (Stephanie Booker v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., No. 17-3133, D. Colo., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75973).
NEW YORK — A New York justice on April 4 denied insureds’ motion to compel an insurer to comply with their appraisal demand of their damage caused by Superstorm Sandy and granted the insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment as to their breach of contract and bad faith claims (570 Smith Street Realty Corp., et al v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc., et al., No. 653296/2014, N.Y. Sup., New York Co., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1773).
COLUMBUS, Ohio — An auto insurer’s attempt to avoid liability for a fatal accident caused by an individual who had permission to drive an insured’s vehicle at the time of the accident is evidence of bad faith, an Ohio federal judge said May 2 in denying the insurer’s motion to dismiss the insured’s bad faith claim (Charles F. Harsh v. GEICO General Insurance Co., No. 17-814, S.D. Ohio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74464).
RENO, Nev.— A Nevada federal judge on April 30 remanded an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith suit arising out of an auto accident to Nevada state court after determining that the insurer failed to meet its burden that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 as required for the suit to remain in federal court (Staci Mitchell v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., No. 19-160, D. Nev., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72288).
CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 25 affirmed a district court’s judgment in favor of an insurer after determining that the insured failed to present any evidence that the insurer acted in bad faith in its handling of an underlying medical malpractice suit (Surgery Center at 900 North Michigan Avenue LLC v. American Physicians Assurance Corp. Inc., et al., No. 18-2622. 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12929).