Miracle Temple Christian Academy accepted partial payment of its Property claim.
Its Property Insurance Carrier, Church Mutual, paid the part of Miracle Temple's claim which both parties agreed was covered. That amount came to a covered loss of $28,065.50, less a $1,000.00 Deductible. Miracle Temple Christian Academy v. Church Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 WL 820588 *2 (E.D. Pa. March 6, 2013).
In making this partial payment of all the undisputed covered elements of its Policyholder's Property Loss Claim, Church Mutual was arguably acting in demonstrably verifiable Good Faith under the majority view which holds that Property Carriers should demonstrate their Good Faith by paying undisputed, covered portions of Property Insurance Claims. The majority view and arguments pro and con are discussed in 2 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH ยง 9:27, "Insurer's Payment of Undisputed Covered Amounts--Part Payment of Property Insurance Claims" (West Publishing Co. Third Edition, 2013 Supplement in process). It is presumably for this reason that Miracle Temple dismissed both its Bad Faith Claim and its Fraud Claim early on after it filed suit against Church Mutual, proceeding only on its Claim for alleged Breach of Contract.
Miracle Temple sued Church Mutual to recover "the remaining disputed loss." Miracle Temple Christian Academy v. Church Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 WL 820588 *2 (E.D. Pa. March 6, 2013). Church Mutual filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Miracle Temple's remaining loss was due to excluded "wear and tear" and that Miracle Temple had failed to present any proof otherwise.
Miracle Temple countered with an Expert Report. After examining the Expert's Opinions and the bases for them expressed in that Report, the Court concluded that the Expert's Opinions "are specific enough that, in combination with the other evidence presented, the jury could find that there was additional damage to Miracle Temple's property that is not excluded by the normal wear and tear provision of the policy. In short, though the circumstances under which [the Plaintiff's Expert] conducted his investigation were far from ideal, these shortcomings do not preclude his investigation from being based on adequate facts or data." Miracle Temple Christian Academy v. Church Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 WL 820588 *4-*5 (E.D. Pa. March 6, 2013). The District Court accordingly denied the Property Carrier's Motion for Summary Judgment in that case.
The Expert Witness: Selecting and Managing A Vital Resource is one of the articles in Property Casualty 360 (March 12, 2013), for example, featuring best practices concerning your Expert Witnesses and other parties' Expert Witnesses. You can read these best practices online or print them, free, from the Publications Page of my website.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments