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.
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 ...
Claims of Res Judicata and Procedural Default Defeats Habeas
Post 5543
Posted on November 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
A Health Insurance Fraud Conviction Rested On Knowingly Submitting Materially False Or Misleading Claim Information With Specific Intent To Defraud.
In Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz v. Commissioner Of Correction, No. CV 26-5002432-S, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Habeas Docket (October 29, 2026) Tariq Mustafa Abdulaziz submitted 114 claims for in-home, face-to-face services purportedly provided to thirty program participants during four one-week periods. The department paid Neurostrategies, Inc., $13,650.
FACTS
The defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected a trial to the court, D'Addabbo, J. Trial occurred over the course of eight days in August, 2022. The state presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced thirty-three exhibits into ...
Theft of Confidential Information
Post 4581
Posted on November 12, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In People Center, Inc. v. Deel, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-02576-CRB (LJC), United States District Court, N.D. California (November 7, 2026) People Center, doing business as Rippling, and Deel compete in payroll and human-resource management software. Rippling alleges that Deel and its executives recruited Rippling employee Keith O’Brien, based in Ireland, to disclose confidential information and trade secrets.
THE IRISH SUIT
Rippling sued O’Brien in Ireland and Deel in the United States. O’Brien subsequently retained separate counsel, supplied an affidavit describing the alleged espionage, and entered into a Cooperation Agreement with Rippling. In exchange for his cooperation, Rippling agreed to provide financial assistance, indemnification, and conditional dismissal of the Irish proceedings. The agreement also permitted renewed proceedings or a monetary judgment upon a material breach.
The Irish proceedings against O’Brien were dismissed...
A Proposed Amended Complaint That Includes New Factual Allegations to Remedy Pleading Deficiencies
Posted on November 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
After Dismissal Fraud Victim May Amend Complaint After Dismissal
Post 4580
If A Proposed Amendment Is Not Clearly Futile, Then Denial Of Leave To Amend Is Improper
In John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company v. Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim, Civ. No. 25-7574 (MAS)(JBD), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (November 6, 2026) John Hancock sued Caring Connections LLC, Arthur Feldheim, and Blime a/k/a Vera Feldheim on June 5, 2025, asserting thirteen claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting fraud.
On March 26, 2026, this Court entered an order granting Caring Connections’ motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Feldheims’ motion to dismiss. The dismissed claims were dismissed without prejudice, and John Hancock timely sought leave to amend.
They also argued that the New ...
