Bad Faith Suit Requires Specificity About What Was Unfair
Pro Se Plaintiff Needed a Lawyer
Post number 5292
See the video at https://lnkd.in/gEZFNq38 and at https://lnkd.in/gZXMPDRb, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250.
In Sean Shurelds v. SAFECO Insurance Company of America, a/k/a Liberty Mutual, Civil Action No. 25-cv-1550, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (February 11, 2026) Plaintiff Sean Shurelds, acting pro se, filed suit against Safeco Insurance Company of America alleging bad faith insurance practices, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligence with the USDC giving him several attempts to sufficiently allege facts to state a cause against SAFECO.
Shurelds had purchased a landlord protection policy for his Philadelphia property, which was in effect from November 28, 2023, to November 28, 2024. After his tenant abandoned the property and unauthorized occupants caused extensive damage, Shurelds submitted five insurance claims to Safeco. Safeco denied all of these claims, citing the damage as normal wear and tear. One claim was referred to law enforcement for alleged insurance fraud.
Law
The legal dispute centers on claims of statutory bad faith insurance practices under Pennsylvania law. Shurelds’ original complaint included additional claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence, which were dismissed with prejudice by the court.
The case proceeded with only the statutory bad faith claim, and later Shurelds sought to add claims for emotional distress and slander; only these two were permitted to proceed. Ultimately, Shurelds filed a Second Amended Complaint asserting eight claims, but none for emotional distress or slander.
Discussion
Safeco moved to dismiss all claims in the Second Amended Complaint. The court reviewed the factual history, including the timeline of Shurelds’ insurance claims and Safeco’s responses. The court noted that Safeco’s denial of the claims was based on its assessment that the property damage resulted from normal wear and tear, not covered losses. The referral of one claim to a detective for suspected insurance fraud further complicated the dispute.
Analysis
The court found that Shurelds failed to state viable claims beyond statutory bad faith, and even that claim was insufficiently supported by facts.
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include sufficient factual matter, taken as true, to show that the claim is facially plausible. 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.
Under Pennsylvania law, a party may recover certain damages if an insurer acted in bad faith. To establish a bad faith insurance claim under section 8371, a plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence, (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 a reasonable basis in denying the claim.
A plaintiff cannot merely say that an insurer acted unfairly but instead must describe with specificity what was unfair.
The Court gave Shurelds multiple opportunities to amend his complaint. Despite these opportunities, he has not raised anything suggesting a cognizable claim. Accordingly, the Court found that allowing any additional amendments is futile.
The court granted Safeco’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
The decision underscores the importance of providing specific factual allegations and legal grounds when asserting insurance bad faith and related claims in federal court.
ZALMA OPINION
It has become axiomatic that a person not a lawyer who represents himself in litigation has a fool for a client. In this case, the USDC, trying to help the Plaintiff, gave him several attempts to amend the complaint to allege with sufficient specificity a viable bad faith claim. He failed and with patience of the USDC was exhausted and the case dismissed.
(c) 2026 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 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 InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
