Our Success

LANDMARK DECISIONS:

Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (insured has no duty to read a policy to ascertain whether a misrepresentation was made and the policy as delivered differed from the policy as sold)

Lesoon v. Metropolitan Life, 898 A.2d. 620 (Pa. Super. 2006), allocator denied, 912 A.2d 1293 (Pa. 2006) (UTPCPL damages in the sale of insurance may be based upon the reasonable expectations created by the insurer)

Boehm v. Riversource, 117 A.3d 308, 321 (Pa. Super. 2015), defence appeal denied, 126 A.3d 1281 (Pa. 2015) (a preponderance of the evidence standard applies to the UTPCPL)

Richards v. Ameriprise, 152 A.3d 1027 (Pa. Super. 2016), allco. dnd. (Pa. 2016) (a finding of a violation of the UTPCPL is not constricted by common law claims such as negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation)

Agliori v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 879 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Ascertainable Loss from an insurance claim under the UTPCPL is defined)

DeArmitt v. New York Life, 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (where life insurance is sold as if it were a financial investment, in this context the sale of securities; heightened standards and scrutiny are applied to the transaction)

Fazio v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 62 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super.2012), defence appeal denied, 72 A.3d 604 (Pa. 2013) (no right to jury trial for private causes of action under the UTPCPL)

LANDMARK APELLATE DECISIONS:

Drelles v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 357 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 2003) (an opt-out of a national class action is neither limited in providing evidence at trial regarding nationwide sales practices nor bound by the terms of the class settlement)

Gregg v. Riversource (2021)(Pa. Supreme Court)(Established that UTPCPL was a strict liability statute) .

INSURANCE BAD FAITH APPELLATE VICTORIES:

Mohney v. American General Life Ins. Co., 116 A.3d 1123 (Pa. Super. 2015) (setting forth when an expert is necessary in an insurance bad faith claim)

Rancosky v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 130 A.3d 79, 102 (Pa. Super. 2015), affirmed, No. 28 WAP 2016, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. 9-28-17) (Pa. 2016) (explaining in an issue of first impression that in order to prove insurer bad faith, under the Pennsylvania Insurance Bad Faith Statute, there is no requirement of proof of actual malice).