Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-02352
05-23-2019
JOSEPH SOWINSKI and DOREEN SOWINSKI, Plaintiffs, v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
() MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint (Doc. 12) filed by Defendant, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company on September 25, 2018 (Doc. 13). Defendant filed its brief in support of the motion on October 8, 2018 (Doc. 14), and Plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to the motion on October 22, 2018. (Doc. 15). Defendant filed a reply brief on October 25, 2018 (Doc. 16). Thereafter, the parties proceeded to mediation, but were unable to reach a resolution of this matter. (Doc. 18). For the reasons contained in this Memorandum, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant is denied. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 20, 2017, Plaintiffs, Joseph Sowinski and Doreen Sowinski, instituted this action by filing a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County. Defendants removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) on December 19, 2017 based upon diversity of citizenship among the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second count of the complaint, in which Plaintiffs alleged a claim of statutory and common law bad faith as defined by 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371. On August 22, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs' complaint contained general and conclusory allegations of bad faith that failed to describe the describe who, what, where, when, and how the bad faith occurred. (Doc. 11). The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, and on September 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (Doc. 12), again alleging a count of breach of contract and a count of statutory and common law bad faith. Defendants now move to dismiss the bad faith count, again alleging that Plaintiffs make only broad conclusory allegations of bad faith, compelling dismissal of the claim, and second, that the allegations do not rise to the level of an actionable bad faith claim. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted the evolving standards governing pleading practice in federal court, stating that:
[s]tandards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years. Beginning with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), continuing with our opinion in Phillips [v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)] and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009).
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). However, a court "need not credit a complaint's 'bald assertions' or 'legal conclusions' when deciding a motion to dismiss." Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997). Additionally, a court need not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Assoc'd. Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).
The court is required to note the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, identify allegations that are not entitled to an assumption of truth because they are no more than conclusions, and determine whether any well-pleaded factual allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief. Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). Dismissal is appropriate only if, accepting as true all the facts alleged in the complaint, a plaintiff has not pleaded "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Meyers v. Protective Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-01821, 2017 WL 4516712, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 10, 2017); citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The factual allegations must be meaningful enough to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of each necessary element. Id.; Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. III. DISCUSSION
Pennsylvania's bad faith statute provides a private cause of action against insurance companies for bad faith denials of insurance coverage. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371. A successful §8371. bad faith claim permits an award of interest on the amount of the insurance claim, punitive damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. "[A]ny frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay proceeds of a policy" constitutes bad faith. Wolfe v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 790 F.3d 487, 498 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Terletsky v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 437 Pa.Super. 108, 649 A.2d 680, 688 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (citation omitted)). To establish a bad faith claim, the insured must show by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy, and (2) that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying the insured's claim. Wolfe,790 F.3d at 498 (citing Terletsky, 649 A.2d at 688). Evidence of an insurer's self-interest and ill-will is probative of the second Terletsky prong, but not required. Rancosky v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., 170 A.3d 364, 377-78, 2017 WL 4296351, at *11 (Pa. 2017).
District courts have required more than "conclusory" or "bare-bones" allegations that an insurance company acted in bad faith by listing a number of generalized accusations without sufficient factual support. See e.g., McKean v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:12-CV-1206, 2012 WL 12869567, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2012), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Stephen v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. 3:12-CV-1206, 2012 WL 12871762 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2012); Liberty Ins. Corp. v. PGT Trucking, Inc., Civ. A. No. 11-151, 2011 WL 2552531, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 27, 2011); Pfister v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., Civ. A. No. 11-799, 2011 WL 3651349 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2011). Averments in a complaint are insufficient when they are unsupported by facts that "describe who, what, where, when, and how the alleged bad faith occurred." Palmisano v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No.12-866, 2012 WL 3595276, * 12 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2012) (citing Liberty Ins. Corp. v. PGT Trucking, No. 2:11-CV-151, 2011 WL 2552531 at *4 (W.D. Pa. June 27, 2011)).
Conclusory allegations of bad faith by an insurance company defendant are insufficient to state a claim. For example, in Meyers v. Protective Insurance Co., 2017 WL 386644 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2017), the court held that allegations that "claim was not timely paid and investigated" and that the defendant had "refused to attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlement," "failed to act in good faith and with fair dealing towards its insured," and "refused to negotiate with Plaintiff in good faith" failed to state more than conclusory allegations. Finding that the plaintiff had provided no factual support from which the court could conclude that the plaintiff's claims were unreasonable, and that the pleading standards required under Iqbal and Twombly were not met, it dismissed the bad faith claim. Id., at *9. In Palmisano, supra, the court found that allegations supporting the bad faith claim were insufficient where the complaint alleged insurer failed to fairly and properly investigate the claim; denied its clearly-established coverage obligations under the policy; repeatedly asserted bases for denying or attempting to deny coverage that have no basis in fact or law and ignored information in its possession refuting the denial of coverage; engaged in improper, unfair, and unlawful claims handling and insurance practices; violated the fiduciary duty owed its insured; engaged in an adversarial relationship with the plaintiffs; and violated the legal requirements for proper insurance practices.
In the complaint presently before the Court, Plaintiff's bad faith count, Count II, lists 20 allegations of bad faith. (Doc. 12, ¶¶ 73(a)-(t)). The Court finds that each of these subparagraphs describe who, what, where, when, and how the bad faith alleged in each subpart of ¶73 occurred. See Palmisano, supra. Further, the Court finds that the amended complaint adequately alleges that Defendant acted in bad faith, and sufficiently articulates the factual basis of the bad faith claim. Each subparagraph details the factual basis for the bad faith claim. These averments are sufficient to allow this claim to go forward, and the complaint satisfactorily pleads both elements of a bad faith claim, that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy, and that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying the insured's claim. See Focht v. State Farm Ins., No. 3:12-CV-1199, 2012 WL 12868849, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:12-CV-1199, 2012 WL 12871761 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2012); Zimmerman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3:11-CV-1341, 2011 WL 4840956 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2011); Five Star Hotels, LLC v. Ins. Co. of Greater New York, 09 CIV. 8717 PGG, 2011 WL 1216022 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2011); Amitie One Condo. Ass'n v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 1:07-CV-1756, 2008 WL 2973097 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2008); Scranton Dunlop, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., CIV. A. 00-2138, 2000 WL 1100779 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2000). IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 13) is DENIED. Defendant shall file an answer to the amended complaint (Doc. 12) within 21 days of today's date.
An appropriate Order follows. Dated: May 23, 2019
/s/ _________
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States Magistrate Judge