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.
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...
