.

Case Law Alerts

Federal Court Dismisses Portions of Plaintiff’s Claims Against Insurer for Failing to Pay UIM Benefits

Odgers v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 22-4521, 2023 WL 5651976 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2023)

October 1, 2023

by Jennifer M. Meyers

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and claims to have sustained serious personal injuries. The plaintiff had $600,000 in underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage with his insurer. The plaintiff settled his primary underinsured claim and the third-party bodily injury claim with the tortfeasor for the total policy limits and for the majority of the primary uninsured limits. 

The plaintiff claimed that his insurer delayed in paying the UIM benefits. In its defense of USAA, Marshall Dennehey moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, and we successfully knocked out a number of the plaintiff’s claims, including the claim for bad faith. Interestingly, the court determined that the plaintiff did not allege sufficient grounds as a matter of law to establish bad faith—noting that “negligence or bad judgment does not equate to bad faith.” 

This determination appears to narrow the application of the second prong establishing bad faith, which requires that the insurer “knew or recklessly disregarded the lack of reasonable basis.” 
 

 

Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Court Affirms Exclusion of Untimely Medical Expense Evidence

In Slowey v. Coleman, No. 2302 EDA 2024, 2026 WL 310149 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 16, 2026), the plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained when his vehicle was rear-ended while stopped at a red light in Philadelphia. Before trial, disputes arose over the admissibility of evidence concerning Slowey’s drug and alcohol use and a $25,000 medical bill that was disclosed after the applicable discovery deadline. Coleman argued the substance-use evidence was relevant to the cause of Slowey’s symptoms, while the late-disclosed medical bill was prejudicial because there was no opportunity to evaluate or challenge it before trial. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The Court held that evidence of Slowey’s drug and alcohol use was relevant because medical records and expert testimony suggested his complaints of numbness and tingling could have been attributable to substance abuse rather than the accident, and the probative value of that evidence outweighed any unfair prejudice. The Court also upheld the exclusion of the $25,000 medical bill, finding that its disclosure shortly before trial violated discovery deadlines and unfairly prejudiced Coleman. Because Slowey failed to obtain relief from the scheduling deadlines, the trial court acted within its discretion in precluding the evidence.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Thought Leadership

Superior Court Affirms Defense Verdict and Dismissal of Punitive Damages Claims

In Major v. Five Star Equipment Inc., No. 735 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Ct. June 30, 2026), the plaintiff was struck by the side mirror of a truck owned by Five Star Equipment and driven by its employee while crossing a roadway on a dark, foggy morning. Major asserted claims for vicarious liability, negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and entrustment, and sought punitive damages. The trial court granted partial summary judgment dismissing the punitive damages claims, bifurcated the case into liability and damages phases, and, following trial, a jury found Major 75% comparatively negligent and Five Star 25% negligent, resulting in a defense verdict. The Superior Court affirmed. The Court held that Major waived her challenge to the verdict slip by failing to request a special interrogatory regarding agency and by omitting such a question from her proposed verdict sheet. The Court further concluded that separate findings on the various liability theories were unnecessary given the straightforward issues and comprehensive jury instructions. The Court also upheld the dismissal of punitive damages claims, finding no evidence that the driver’s conduct rose beyond negligence to reckless indifference, including no evidence of fatigue or other aggravating circumstances. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in bifurcating the trial, holding that the procedure promoted judicial economy and did not prejudice Major.

Thought Leadership

Lead Driver Granted Summary Judgment in Rear-End Collision Case

In Gonzalez v. Sanchez-Casarrubias, 2026 NY Slip Op 51261(U), 89 Misc. 3d 1245(A) (Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle that rear-ended another car, sought damages arising from a December 13, 2025 motor vehicle accident. Defendant D’Oleo, the driver of the lead vehicle, moved for summary judgment, asserting that he was lawfully stopped at a red light when his vehicle was struck from behind and that he did not contribute to the collision. Plaintiff argued that D’Oleo had stopped suddenly after attempting to beat a yellow light, thereby creating a question of fact as to his negligence. The court granted D’Oleo’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims and cross-claims against him. Relying on New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129(a), the court noted that a rear-end collision with a stopped vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the rear driver, and claims of a sudden stop are generally insufficient to rebut that presumption. The court found that D’Oleo established he was stopped at a red light and free from negligence, while the second driver’s admission that he struck the lead vehicle further supported dismissal. The court also rejected Plaintiff’s contention that the motion was premature, concluding that the material facts surrounding the collision were already within the knowledge of the rear driver. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of D’Oleo and the action proceeded only against the remaining defendants.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law