Denial of Claim Alone is Not Evidence of Bad Faith

Reliance on Expert Opinion Avoids Claim of Bad Faith

Post 5009

Posted on March 6, 2025 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6q6r1c-denial-of-claim-alone-is-not-evidence-of-bad-faith.html and at https://youtu.be/IhgUagU3XUM

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