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
Guilty Verdict of Mortgage Fraud Scheme Stands
Post 5010
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-epidemic-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-6kldc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6q873m-fraud-is-epidemic.html and at https://youtu.be/8EOUxLFggc0, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
People Who Commit Fraud Have no Respect and Compelled the Trial Court to Deal With Dozens of Ineffective Motions
People Who Commit Fraud Have no Respect and Compelled the Trial Court to Deal With Dozens of Ineffective Motions
A jury convicted Defendant Jeffrey Young-Bey on twelve counts related to a mortgage-fraud scheme he perpetrated in the District of Columbia. Young-Bey moved for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The USDC, in United States Of America v. Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, Criminal Action No. 21-661 (CKK), United States District Court, District of Columbia (February 28, 2025) found the verdict was based on convincing evidence and denied his motion.
FACTS
A mortgage-fraud scheme in the...
Lack of Standing Requires Dismissal
Post 5008
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gvSemwVK, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gcH7RrhH and at https://lnkd.in/gqmF2Jqi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
Chutzpah: Attempt to Use Federal Court to Obtain a Share of the Proceeds of an Insurance Fraud
Tyanna Dodson is a chiropractor who sought compensation from ExamWorks, L.L.C.'s ("ExamWorks" ), a medical billing and scheduling provider. Dodson alleged that ExamWorks over-billed her patients' insurers for her services to insurers for independent medical exams (IME) she conducted.
In Tyanna Dodson, Doctor of Chiropractic v. ExamWorks, L.L.C., No. 24-50248, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (on February 28, 2025) Dodson contended that the IME's she conducted to help insurers defeat attempted insurance fraud were billed by ExamWorks fraudulently overcharging he insurer clients. She sued EamWorks for half of the excessive billing and damages because she faced discipline and charges of ...
Exclusion of Defamatory Or Disparaging Statements Made With Knowledge Of Their Falsity Effective
Post 5007
Liability Insurance is Limited to Unintentional Conduct
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ2XXKB3, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/g5HA2uAA and at https://lnkd.in/gDd9PE6C, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
The main issue presented to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether the insurance policies’ exclusions, which deny coverage for defamatory or disparaging statements made with knowledge of their falsity, apply. The District Court held that the exclusions do apply, as the underlying complaint alleged that the insureds knowingly published false statements.
In New Hampshire Insurance Company; National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh v. TSG Ski & Golf, LLC; The Peaks Owners Association, Inc.; Peak Hotel, LLC; H. Curtis Brunjes, No. 23-1248, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (February 24, 2025) the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
BACKGROUND
TSG Ski & Golf,...
The Basics Needed by a Liability Adjuster
Post 5003
Posted on February 25, 2025 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at
Adjusting liability insurance claims requires skill, patience, knowledge of insurance, basic knowledge of tort and contract law, and knowledge and experience as an investigator. The liability claims adjuster is faced with the following basic obligations:
- To understand the law of torts as applied in the state where the adjuster works.
- To understand the law of contracts as applied in the state where the adjuster works.
- To understand sufficient medical terminology to be able to evaluate claims of injury.
- To understand the costs to repair or replace damaged real or personal property.
- To understand how to read and apply the terms and conditions of a liability insurance policy.
- To understand how to thoroughly investigate all claims assigned.
- To conduct an investigation of every claim ...
Posted on February 24, 2025 by Barry Zalma
Deterring Insurance Fraud
A New Book on Insurance Fraud and How the DOJ Deters and Defeats Insurance Fraud.
INSURANCE FRAUD IS EPIDEMIC
Insurance fraud continually takes more money each year than it did the last from the insurance buying public. There is no certain number. No one knows the amount that is taken by insurance fraud because most attempts at insurance fraud succeed. Estimates of the extent of insurance fraud in the United States range from $87 billion to more than $300 billion every year. The only certainty is that it is a serious crime that bleeds the insurance industry sufficiently to have states compel insurers to create special investigative units (SIU’s) to investigate, deter and defeat insurance fraud to assist the state in its efforts to prosecute the crime.
Insurers and government backed pseudo-insurers can only estimate the extent they lose to fraudulent claims. Lack of sufficient investigation and prosecution of insurance ...
Posted on February 24, 2025 by Barry Zalma
Deterring Insurance Fraud
A New Book on Insurance Fraud and How the DOJ Deters and Defeats Insurance Fraud.
INSURANCE FRAUD IS EPIDEMIC
Insurance fraud continually takes more money each year than it did the last from the insurance buying public. There is no certain number. No one knows the amount that is taken by insurance fraud because most attempts at insurance fraud succeed. Estimates of the extent of insurance fraud in the United States range from $87 billion to more than $300 billion every year. The only certainty is that it is a serious crime that bleeds the insurance industry sufficiently to have states compel insurers to create special investigative units (SIU’s) to investigate, deter and defeat insurance fraud to assist the state in its efforts to prosecute the crime.
Insurers and government backed pseudo-insurers can only estimate the extent they lose to fraudulent claims. Lack of sufficient investigation and prosecution of insurance ...
