Scheirer v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., No. 3:13-CV-1397, 2015 WL 1013986 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2015).
Middle District of Pennsylvania denies cross-motions for summary judgment on bad faith claim, holding that material issues of fact existed where Plaintiff ultimately received benefits but claimed that insurer handled the claim in an untimely manner.
Virginia Sheirer was thrown to the floor of a county bus when the driver swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle. Sheirer had an insurance policy from defendant Nationwide Insurance Company of America which covered tort and uninsured motorist claims of “up to $100,000 per person.” Upon notification of the plaintiff’s UM claim and demand for arbitration, Nationwide refused the arbitration request and made a written request for a medical examination and the plaintiff’s statement under oath. Sheirer then sued for breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the breach of contract and bad faith claims.
The Court denied both motions as to the bad faith claim, holding that there were disputed material facts and a reasonable jury could credit either party’s account of events. At the time of the Court’s ruling, the claim had been resolved by way of binding arbitration, the result of which was not challenged by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff did not claim that she had been wrongfully denied benefits. Rather, the plaintiff based her bad faith claim primarily upon an “alternative” basis recognized under Pennsylvania law; namely, that the defendant handled the claim in an untimely manner.
The court found that disputes existed, inter alia, as to whether defendant promptly evaluated and investigated plaintiff’s UM claim; failed to timely respond to plaintiff’s demands; failed to promptly resolve plaintiff’s claim within the $100,000 policy limits; failed to act promptly upon communication regarding plaintiff’s claim; failed to have reasonable standards with respect to plaintiff’s UM claim; and failed to timely pay plaintiff’s UM claim when it had all of the necessary information.
