Allison L. Krupp

We won dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal of a defense verdict. Our client issued a professional liability insurance policy to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs were sued for legal malpractice, they notified our client of the suit and asked them to provide counsel to defend the matter. However, the plaintiffs never agreed to counsel proposed by our client. The plaintiffs then proceeded to mediation in the legal malpractice action and settled the matter without notifying our client. As a result, our client denied the plaintiffs’ request for indemnification. The plaintiffs then brought suit against our client for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging they wrongly denied indemnification and failed to provide counsel. The matter went to jury trial from April 8–11, 2024, where we successfully defended our client as the jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiffs filed post-trial motions and then appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to see a copy of the insurance contract during their deliberations. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal and found that the plaintiffs waived their argument by failing to cite relevant legal authority in their appellate brief. The Superior Court also stated in a footnote that, should the court have reached the issue on appeal, it would have found it meritless because the insurance contract was a central piece of evidence to which the plaintiffs did not object during trial.

We secured a jury verdict in a breach of contract/statutory bad faith action that arose under a legal malpractice policy issued to a law firm by our insurance company client. The plaintiffs settled a malpractice claim set forth against them without our client’s knowledge or consent. The insurance company then denied coverage for that claim, and the plaintiffs filed suit. Because the case included a bad faith claim, if the plaintiffs prevailed on both counts, the damages could have been seven figures or more. We took the case to trial before Judge Patrick in Philadelphia County. The jury returned a verdict on the breach of contract claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish their damages by a preponderance of the evidence. The judge then dismissed the statutory bad faith claim.

We obtained dismissal of both bad faith and Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims in a case filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case arose from a UIM claim presented after a motor vehicle accident. In an extensive footnote to the order, the court included a fairly comprehensive overview of the standards for pleading viable bad faith in UTPCPL claims in Pennsylvania. The court did not allow the plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint in order to cure the pleading defects.

The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The issue for the court was whether the carrier had breached the terms of the policy when it denied the plaintiff’s first-party benefits claim relating to medical bills for PTSD allegedly caused by the underlying accident. The policy defined “bodily injury” as “accidental bodily harm to a person, and that person’s resulting illness, disease or death.” The plaintiff argued that, because she had sustained both physical and mental injuries as a result of the accident, the treatment related to both types of injuries and should be covered. The defense argued that, per the policy and controlling case law, mental injuries are only covered if they “result from” the physical injury. Because the PTSD stemmed from the plaintiff’s fear of driving following the accident—as opposed to mental injuries that resulted directly from the physical injuries—the defense asserted that they are not covered. The court agreed with the defense and found that the language of the policy was clear and unambiguous. It found that the Superior Court’s holding in Zerr v. Erie Ins. Exchange controlled and that the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence that her mental injuries resulted from her bodily injuries. Absent that connection, there was no coverage for the PTSD, regardless of any collateral physical injuries sustained in the accident.

We obtained summary judgment in a putative class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a large insurer. The case dealt with a letter the insurance carrier would send to their insureds following a motor vehicle accident in which they advised their insureds that they would have a rental vehicle for five days. The named plaintiffs argued the letter misrepresented the policy language and they sued for breach of contract, bad faith, declaratory judgment and equitable relief. Per the insurer’s request, the court agreed to stay class action discovery so that the insurer could file a dispositive motion as to the named plaintiffs, which, if granted, would dispose of the entire putative class action case. In its motion for summary judgment, the insurer argued that the named plaintiffs could not meet their individual burdens of proof since it was undisputed they had a rental vehicle for 23 days and had returned the rental the same day they picked up their newly purchased vehicle. The court agreed and granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed the action. The court reasoned, in part, that the named plaintiffs’ alleged damages were speculative and that issuance of the rental letter did not constitute a breach of the policy since the plaintiffs could not show that they were not afforded benefits to which they were entitled.

We secured the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed in federal court against a large insurer. This case arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2015. The plaintiff averred that she had sustained injuries in excess of the tortfeasor’s bodily injury liability limits and sought stacked underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. While the plaintiff had admittedly signed a rejection of UIM coverage form and a rejection of UIM coverage stacked limits form, she argued that her insurer had altered the statutorily required forms by adding additional language. The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment complaint against her insurer. We filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on behalf of the defendant, which was granted by the federal court. The court reasoned that the UIM rejection form “specifically complied” with the applicable requirements of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law because the additional language, contained on the same page as the statutorily required rejection language, was “inconsequential.”