Pa. Superior Court Vacates Bad-Faith Insurance Verdict, Cautioning Against Industrywide Condemnations

by Pepper Hamilton LLP

In a highly anticipated decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an eyebrow-raising $21 million award for an auto policyholder and found that the insurer did not act in bad faith. The Superior Court concluded that the trial court improperly focused on the alleged shortcomings of the insurance industry in general, as opposed to the specific facts before the court.

Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. began two decades ago, when a policyholder’s Jeep was damaged in a crash. While no one was injured, the policyholder believed the Jeep was a total loss and filed a claim for $25,000. Nationwide disagreed, believing the vehicle could be repaired. The years-long case went up and down through the courts several times, involving multiple trial court judges, decisions and trips to the Superior Court.

In the last trial court action in 2014, the judge issued a scathing 42-page opinion against Nationwide, criticizing it for forcing a policyholder to compete with “a conglomerate insurance company.” The Berks County judge found that Nationwide was sending a message that “we can get away with whatever we want to, and . . . you cannot stop us.” He then ordered Nationwide to pay $18 million in punitive damages, plus an additional $3 million in attorney’s fees.

The trial court judge highlighted the perceived shortcomings of Nationwide and, at times, the insurance industry in general. He expressed concerns that insurance company employees “might” be asked to explore cost-cutting measures to lower the amount of claims an insurer must pay. He also cautioned that a policyholder wishing to sue for benefits “takes a huge risk that the case could go on without compensation for years.”

On appeal, the Superior Court found that almost all of this commentary from the trial court was superfluous to the issues raised by the case. Judge Victor P. Stabile, writing a majority opinion joined by Judge Paula Francisco Ott, explained that the question before the trial court was limited to “whether Plaintiffs proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that [Nationwide] acted in bad faith in this case.” (Emphasis added.) Issues such as cost-containment measures used across the insurance industry were not relevant to that question.

The majority criticized what it saw as the trial court’s failure “to limit [its] analysis to the facts of this case and applicable law” as well as the trial court’s “consideration of matters outside this case record,” including ways in which insurance companies conduct their business.

The Superior Court also took issue with the trial court’s decision to rely on an earlier case in which there was evidence that a “Best Claims Practice Manual” allegedly encouraged adjusters to reduce the average claim payment level to a level lower than other insurers. In that earlier case, the court concluded that the manual discouraged case-by-case evaluations of claims, and supported a finding of bad faith. The Berg majority noted there was no evidence that any adjusters involved in the present case relied on that manual, meaning it could not be used to support a finding of bad faith.

The decision was not unanimous, and Superior Court President Judge Emeritus Correale F. Stevens, writing in dissent, concluded that the trial court cited “ample evidence from the certified record to support its verdict and damage award,” and that he believed the majority improperly usurped the trial court’s fact-finding power.

Bad-faith claims in Pennsylvania, governed by 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371, are often expensive propositions for insurance companies. The statute allows policyholders to recover various damages — including punitive damages and attorney’s fees — when plaintiffs can prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and the insurer knew of, or recklessly disregarded, its lack of a reasonable basis.” See, e.g., Rancosky v. Washington National Ins., 170 A.3d 364 (Pa. 2017). (Read our analysis of the Rancosky decision here.)

However, bad-faith claims often prove costly for insurers even when plaintiffs cannot meet that burden. While contract-based claims for insurance benefits often require relatively limited discovery, discovery in bad-faith claims can be much more invasive, with many plaintiffs seeking information about insurers’ claims-handling policies and their internal deliberative processes, which would otherwise be irrelevant to a standard claim for benefits or protected by judicially recognized work-product considerations.

The Berg decision could aid Nationwide and other insurers in resisting the type of overbroad discovery requests regularly submitted by plaintiffs’ attorneys. These discovery requests often seek information about unrelated lawsuits, claims-handling procedures in other cases, and companywide financial information, which generally have no bearing on the facts involved in individual claims-handling decisions.

By reminding trial courts that bad-faith claims are case-specific — and should not be based on industry practices or trends — the majority’s decision in Berg could help insurers limit discovery to facts relevant to an individual policyholder’s claim, and close off the types of fishing expeditions that trial courts sometimes still allow.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pepper Hamilton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.