Reliance on Expert Opinion Avoids Claim of Bad Faith
Post 5009
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXxK7AQx, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gaH7yAJM and at https://lnkd.in/g_3Ss3wn, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Denying a Church’s Claim Based on an Expert’s Report is not Evidence of Bad Faith
Lakeside Evangelical Congregational Church sued Church Mutual Insurance Company (CMIC), for Breach of Contract and for Bad Faith stemming from CMIC’s alleged failure to provide insurance payments for roof damage caused by hail. CMIC moved to dismiss Count II (the Bad Faith count of its suit).
In Lakeside Evangelical Congregational Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 2:24-CV-00859-MJH, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh (March 3, 2025) the District Court applied the rule that an insurer relying on an expert report is not acting in bad faith when it denies a claim.
BACKGROUND
Lakeside alleged that the roof of its church sustained wind and hail damage from a June 16, 2022 storm. CMIC denied the claim, based on the opinions of its Forensic Engineer, James Graf, who concluded the damage to the roof was not the result of hail damage; but rather, the balding and blemishes on the roof shingles were consistent with a manufacturing defect, a non-covered cause of loss.
Lakeside alleged because CMIC refused to pay benefits pursuant to the policy, CMIC breached the insurance contract, for which Lakeside claimed damages in the amount of $146,016.72. In addition the First Amended Complaint alleged that CMIC acted in bad faith.
The basis of the church’s suit was that its public adjuster opined that CMIC acted without justification and in disregard of their insureds’ rights under the policy of insurance.
RELEVANT STANDARD
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to streamline litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and fact finding.
DISCUSSION
CMIC argued that Lakeside’s Bad Faith claim should be dismissed, because its reliance upon Mr. Graf’s engineering report provides a reasonable basis for its denial of Lakeside’s roof hail damage claim.
To succeed on a bad faith claim, a plaintiff-insured must prove, by clear and convincing evidence:
1. that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy; and
2. that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.
An insurer simply must show that it had a reasonable basis for a coverage decision based on the information available at the time the decision was made. Reliance upon an expert report is a reasonable basis to deny an insurance claim. The insurance company is not required to show that the process by which it reached its conclusion was flawless or that the investigatory methods it employed eliminated possibilities at odds with its conclusion.
The basis for Lakeside’s Bad Faith claim stems solely from CMIC’s decision that hail damage was not the cause of the condition of Lakeside’s roof. Lakeside’s criticism of Mr. Graf’s report derives from Lakeside’s public adjuster, Jason Cortazzo’s, disagreement with the report. Regardless of which, if either, expert opinion is ultimately determined to be correct, for purposes of a bad faith claim, CMIC is entitled to rely upon on its own expert opinion in relation to the decision it made. Under these circumstances and allegations, Lakeside’s Amended Complaint failed to support a bad faith claim.
Accordingly, CMIC’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Amended Complaint was granted and dismissed without prejudice.
ZALMA OPINION
To prove a case for the tort of bad faith, as alleged by Lakeside, the insured must show that the insurer wrongfully, maliciously, unreasonably, and recklessly refused the claim. In this case the insurer relied on the expertise of a qualified engineer and the insured relied on the expertise of a public adjuster. Regardless of which expert was correct relying upon a qualified expert’s opinion is evidence of the good faith of the insurer who made its decision based on a competent expert’s opinion creating a genuine dispute between the insured and the insurer.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
