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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
