LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge.
This homeowner's insurance dispute was removed to this court based on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs Samuel and Tori Morrissey assert several state law claims against their insurer State Farm. State Farm moves to dismiss two counts: the bad faith claim and the state consumer law claim. For the reasons explained below, I will grant the defendant's motion.
On December 12, 2012, the plaintiffs' residence located at 107 West Franklin Street, Womelsdorf, Berks County, Pennsylvania was damaged by a fire, making it uninhabitable. The plaintiffs had a homeowners' insurance policy with State Farm for the Franklin Street residence with coverage limits of $220,000 for the house, $165,000 for personal property, and the actual value of the loss of use sustained.
The defendant investigated the plaintiffs' claims. On April 5, 2013, the defendant took a sworn statement of Plaintiff Samuel W. Morrissey. On September 13, 2013, the defendant took a second sown statement of Mr. Morrissey. On October 7, 2013, State Farm sent the plaintiffs a letter indicating it had concluded its investigation and extended insurance coverage to the plaintiffs.
Mr. Morrissey made repeated requests for Bank of America to endorse the check so that repair work could begin on the residence. Bank of America refused because they were no longer the holder of the mortgage. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel returned the settlement check to the defendant and requested that it be re-issued to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel, and Nationstar Mortgage Co.
Sometime after January 27, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel set up a conference call between himself, Ms. McClenaghan, and Nationstar. During the call Nationstar explained to Ms. McClenaghan what was needed to process the settlement check addressed to Nationstar, not Bank of America. On April 9, 2014, plaintiff's counsel received the settlement check from the defendant and was able to process it.
On March 27, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a "Writ of Summons" and "Plaintiffs' Notice of Records Deposition in Aid of Drafting a Complaint," after receiving a letter that State Farm would terminate their alternative housing at the end of July. The latter motion for pre-complaint discovery was litigated in state court in Berks County, Pennsylvania. Eventually, the state court judge directed the plaintiffs to file their complaint without the requested discovery by August 15, 2014.
The plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that the defendant violated Pennsylvania's bad faith statute by: 1) issuing the settlement check over one year after the fire occurred; 2) delaying reissuing the check for three and a half months "for no valid reason;" 3) filing "boilerplate objections to Plaintiff's discovery in this action for the purpose of preventing the drafting of a Complaint to get an advantage in this case;" 4) arbitrarily refusing to settle their claims; and 5) breaching fiduciary duties and other state laws.
Pennsylvania's bad faith statute allows a plaintiff to recover interest, punitive damages, court costs, and/or attorney's fees if an insurer has acted in bad faith in handling a claim.
Even after viewing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, I cannot find that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the defendant acted in bad faith. They have not provided factual information to show that the defendant lacked a reasonable basis for delaying payment of their benefits. They have not offered information about repeated attempts to negotiate with the defendant to which the defendant was non-responsive.
The plaintiffs' allegations that the defendant acted in bad faith during this litigation by filing "boilerplate objections to Plaintiff's discovery in this action for the purpose of preventing the drafting of a Complaint to get an advantage in this case" also do not show bad faith. Bad faith may extend to the misconduct of the insurer during the pendency of litigation.
These "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to state a valid cause of action.
The plaintiffs support their Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claim with the exact same actions used to make out their bad faith claim. These allegations also fail to assert a plausible UTPCPL claim. Pennsylvania's UTPCPL allows a person "who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property" to bring a private action to recover the loss, attorney's fees, and costs.
The Third Circuit has made clear: "[i]n Pennsylvania, only malfeasance, the improper performance of a contractual obligation, raises a cause of action under the [UTPCPL], and an insurer's mere refusal to pay a claim which constitutes nonfeasance, the failure to perform a contractual duty, is not actionable." Gardner v. State Farm Fire &
Drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the defendant's delays in first issuing of the dwelling check and then re-issuing the check may show malfeasance or indicate improper performance of the contractual obligation.
The plaintiffs also argue the defendant's termination of their alternative housing coverage at the end of July 2014 was a UTPCPL violation. Even assuming that the defendant's termination of the plaintiffs' housing coverage was improper under their contractual provisions, it would be nonfeasance (i.e. failure to perform the contractual duty), not malfeasance (i.e. improper performance of the contractual duty).
For the foregoing reasons, I will grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's bad faith claim (Count VI) and UTPCPL claim (Count V).
An appropriate Order follows.
Count II alleges that the defendant improperly terminated their alternative housing costs. On March 25, 2014, the plaintiffs received a letter from State Farm stating that their alternative housing coverage would terminate at the end of July 2014. After that point, State Farm indicated the plaintiffs would be responsible for their housing costs. The plaintiffs' monthly rent for their temporary housing is $3000. Furnishings for the temporary housing cost $1000 a month.
Count IV (sic) asserts that a $12,500 charge for debris removal was not paid. That invoice was sent to the defendant on July 1, 2014.
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8371.
In fact, the complaint appears to show the opposite. Once the defendant's agent Ms. McClenaghan became aware that the settlement check was deficient, she not only tried to contact Bank of America herself but also worked with plaintiff's counsel and Nationstar to ensure that the deficiency was corrected. Her letter regarding the deficient check was written one day after plaintiffs' counsel returned the check, which was almost one month after the plaintiffs had received the check. During that one-month delay, it was Bank of America (who is not a party to this case), not the defendant, who refused to endorse the check after repeated requests to do so.
Even assuming the objections were "boilerplate," this too would not be enough for a bad faith claim.
73 P.S. § 201-9.2.