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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
