![]() ![]() The insureds alleged they paid their premiums, gave notice of renovations, and timely submitted their coverage claims. Plausible Bad Faith Claim Stated for Pursuing Argument that would make Coverage Illusory The court found the insureds stated a plausible bad faith claim as to the denial of Home Protection Coverage. BAD FAITH The court set forth various principles on statutory bad faith, though incorrectly stating that the insured must demonstrate some motive of self-interest or ill will. The court held that to find otherwise would make the relevant policy language illusory. However, the court found the breach of contract claim for the “Home Protection Coverage” stated a plausible claim. There was no plausible claim that a contract existed as such or through the reasonable expectations doctrine. Breach of Contract Claims Partially Survive The court dismissed the breach of contract claim for extended policy limits, without prejudice. The insurer rejected claims for the higher limits and the Home Protection Coverage, and the insureds sued for breach of contract, statutory bad faith, promissory estoppel, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The carrier asserted to the contrary that there was both no evidence properly documenting an increase in policy limits, or that the insureds met the requirements needed to receive the Home Protection Coverage. “Essentially, the Home Protector Coverage’s purpose is to provide extended coverage in the event a homeowner’s losses exceed the policy’s coverage limits.” The insureds also they did everything necessary for the Home Protection Coverage to be in place at the time of their fire loss. This provision provides for a 25% coverage extension on existing policy limits. In addition, the policy included a provision for “Home Protection Coverage”. This all occurred before the fire loss at issue. The court details a series of alleged telephone communications between the insureds and the carrier, which the insureds claim committed the carrier to the policy limit increases. This case centers on a dispute between the insureds and their homeowners carrier over whether the carrier had agreed to policy limit increases based on a multi-million dollar renovation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |