2017年6月的每月存档

2017年6月的错误信念案例:财务顾问建议7星彩开奖结果查询产品对客户/被7星彩开奖结果查询人缺席没有任何责任,实际上或完全放弃了对顾问的决定的所有控制权(宾夕法尼亚州最高法院)

This case 在 volves the existence of a fiduciary duty between financial advisor 和 his clients. 的facts 在 clude recommendations to buy certain life 在 surance policies, which the 在 sureds later claimed were fraudulently represented to them. They brought various claims, 在 cluding breach of fiduciary duty claims.

Those claims were rejected by the trial court, which found no fiduciary duty existed 在 the absence of the financial advisor having control over the 在 sureds’ decisionmaking. 的Superior Court reversed, finding the existence of a fiduciary duty based on the facts concerning the relationship between the advisor 和 his clients, rather than as a matter of law. 的Supreme Court reversed that decision. It ruled, along the lines of the trial court, that 在 the absence of a traditional type of controlling 和 overmastering relationship, there is no fiduciary duty simply because the financial advisor has greater expertise where the clients made the ultimate 在 vestment decisions.

最高法院指出:

“虽然涉及信托关系的案件必然是事实特定的,但它们通常在一个人中涉及一些特殊的漏洞,这为另一个人创造了利用其利益的独特机会。”

“在我们面前的案件中,高级法院错误地依靠我们的涉及不当影响力的判例法来支持其结论,即可以建立受托关系而没有证据表明决策权已有效地割让给另一人。它的观点错过了这样一个观点,即行使不当影响的核心是表明受到如此影响的个人已经失去了做出独立决定的能力。”

“我们得出的结论是……简易判决的证据记录远没有建立受托人……。信义义务的产生不是“仅仅因为一方依赖另一方的专业技能并为此付出代价。”…。如果这是宾夕法尼亚州的法律,那么“只要一方在某个特定领域比另一方具有更大程度的技能和专长,就可能建立受信关系。”

“一方的高级知识或专门知识不会对该方施加信托义务,也不会以公平的方式将其转为保密关系。在这方面,在消费者交易中的分析与本法院裁定的其他信托义务案件没有什么不同。”

“’关键的问题是,这种关系是否超出了仅仅依靠高级技能的程度,而是变成了一种以‘过度掌握影响’ on one side or ‘弱点,依赖或信任,有正当理由’ on the other side,”从而导致财产被征收人有效地放弃了对决策的控制。”

“只有当一方将决策控制权移交给另一方时,在消费者交易的情况下才可能产生信托义务。”因此,“只有当一方将对某事务的部分控制权移交给另一方时,商务交易才可能成为保密关系的基础。”

的case before the court did not fall 在 to these categories. Rather, it presented “an arm’s-length consumer transaction 在 which the [clients/insureds] accepted [the financial advisor’s] advice with respect to the purchase of the … whole life 在 surance policy[, 和 they] made the decision to purchase this policy, but also decided to reject other proffered products 和 services.” 的complicated nature of the premium structure did not change the character of the transaction between the parties. 的clients “purchased an 在 surance product from a captive financial advisor with whom they had a business relationship for a little more than a year, 在 itiated by a cold-call. [Their] lack of post-secondary high school educations is not 在 dicative of a 弱点,依赖或信任,有正当理由, nor is [the advisor’s] advanced training sufficient to establish an 过度掌握影响.”

“这里的记录表明,(他们)决定购买上诉人’咨询和理财产品。依赖另一个’如果没有更多的专业技能或知识,就不会建立受托关系。我们承认,[他们]可能已经对上诉人感到满意’在决定购买…整个寿险保单之前要具备的专业知识,这在做出财务决定时可以预期。它是任何业务关系发展的一部分—消费者还是其他。但是,它并没有建立信托关系。”

“没有证据表明他们在他们的判断中被压倒,支配或受到不适当的影响……。” “ [他们]从未放弃任何决策权……。”在这段关系中,他们遵循了他的一些建议,但拒绝了其他建议。在提出有争议的终身政策提案之前,上诉人提出了[他们]没有购买的另一种终身产品。”

对法院而言,在适当的情况下,消费者“拥有各种普通法的侵权救济(其举证责任不如受托责任案件所要求的严格),以及针对普通法欺诈的索赔和提供的法定救济,对法院而言具有重要意义。由当前版本的UTPCPL提供,该版本为欺骗性行为提供了一种补救措施。 73 P.S. §201-2(4)(xxi)。”

的majority “decline[d] to modify the law of fiduciary duty to encompass the particular pitfalls 在 volved 在 the sale of 在 surance products by commissioned agents or financial advisors to less savvy customers. 更多over, we do not hold that a fiduciary duty cannot arise 在 a case with facts not present 这里, but absent evidence that a consumer of financial services 和 goods cedes control over the decision to purchase, either explicitly or implicitly because of over-mastering or undue 在 fluence, no fiduciary relationship arises.”

Date of Decision: 六月20, 2017

Yenchi诉Ameriprise Financial,Inc.,第8号WAP 2016年,2017年Pa。LEXIS 1405(2017年6月20日,Pa)(宾夕法尼亚州最高法院)

的dissenting opinion can be found 这里.

2017年6月不良信念案例:违反政策限制要求,独自站立,不能成为不良信念(费城联邦)

这是“另一个UIM恶意案件”,这是最常见的恶意案件。话虽如此,对于所有处理恶意法律的律师和当事方而言,研究在这些案件中可以找到的任何更广泛的原则仍然很重要,而不是陷入沉迷的境地,因为一旦读者发现该案件仅仅是“另一个UIM恶意案件。”

In this case, the 在 sured alleged he sought the $15,000 policy limit 和 the 在 surer would not agree to pay that sum. 的complaint 在 cluded assertions that the 在 surer failed to “(1) act with reasonable promptness 在 evaluating 和 responding to his claim 和 reasonable fairness 在 paying the claim, (2) negotiate his claim, (3) properly 在 vestigate 和 evaluate his claim 和 (4) request a defense medical examination of him.” Without pleading facts regarding the 在 surer’s actual 在 vestigation, responses or offers, the 在 sured still claimed “that the 在 surer lacked a reasonable basis for its conduct 在 handling his claim since there ‘is no dispute 在 this case that the accident was the fault of the underinsured driver 和 that [he] was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under [his] policy.’”

的court observed the general principle that to “recover on a bad faith claim, a claimant is required to show by 清晰而令人信服 evidence that: (1) the defendant 在 surer did not have a reasonable basis for denying the policy benefits; 和 (2) that the 在 surer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis when it denied the claim.” It stated that “[v]arious other actions by an 在 surer can also rise to the level of bad faith, such as ‘lack of 在 vestigation 在 to the facts[ ] or a failure to communicate with the 在 sured.” 的court noted “[b]ad faith may occur ‘when an 在 surance company makes an 在 adequate 在 vestigation or fails to perform adequate legal research concerning a coverage issue.’” 的court added, “[a]lthough an 在 surer’s conduct need not be fraudulent for an 在 sured to recover pursuant to a ‘bad faith’ claim, mere negligence or bad judgment will not suffice.”

最终,法院在有关恶意法律的一般性陈述中指出:“ [索赔人必须表明,7星彩开奖结果查询人基于自身利益或恶意的动机而采取了恶意行为。”这是一个UIM案例如何揭示更广泛关注点的示例。 [在 兰科斯基诉华盛顿国家7星彩开奖结果查询公司,宾夕法尼亚州最高法院后来决定,“出于个人利益或恶意的动机”不是法定恶意的内容,而只是与证明合理基础和知识或or顾后果的内容有关的证据。]

In this case, the court dismissed the bad faith claim, with leave to amend the complaint. 的insured only alleged that he 和 the 在 surer failed to agree on the UIM sum to be paid, to which he claimed he was entitled. However, the law provides that an 在 surer’s decision not to immediately pay a policy limits demand, without more, does not constitute bad faith. Without more facts concerning the 在 sured’s claim 和 the 在 surer’s 在 vestigations, negotiations, offers 和 communications, the court could not simply 在 fer the presence of an actionable bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: 六月19, 2017

琼斯诉Allstate7星彩开奖结果查询公司,2017年第17-648号。 LEXIS 93673(美国宾夕法尼亚州2017年6月19日)(Pappert,J.)

2017年6月不良信仰案件:被告未为被告未提出原告的不良信仰采取直接行动(费城联邦)

In this case, the plaintiff attempted to bring various claims against an 在 surer, 在 cluding a bad faith claim. Pennsylvania is not a direct action state. 的pleadings revealed that the 在 surer defendant did not 在 sure the plaintiff. 的plaintiff thus had no claims against the 在 surer, 和 all claims against the 在 surer were dismissed.

Date of Decision: 六月20, 2017

ABC Capital Invs。,LLC诉CNA Financial Corporation,No。16-CV-4943 2017年美国地区。 LEXIS 95433(于2017年6月20日在美国法学出版社出版)(Joyner,J.)

 

2017年6月错误的信念案例:超过受限制的UIM政策之上的VERDICT并不严重,因此造成的损害(中区)

的UIM 在 sured brought breach of contract, common law contractual bad faith, 和 statutory bad faith claims. 的court recognized that the scope of common law bad faith damages described by the Supreme Court’s 出生中心 在第三方上下文中的决定,也适用于第一方上下文。因此,虽然全额UIM利益的支付可能会困扰合同索赔,但它不会自动解决潜在的普通法恶意损害赔偿要求。

In this case, policy limits were tendered after litigation began, so the court looked at the claim for additional damages 在 evaluating the common law bad faith claim. 的insured asserted that an award 在 excess of the policy limits would fall within the kind of consequential damages allowed for 在 a common law bad faith claim. However, looking at 出生中心 和 Cowden, the court concluded that an excess verdict on a first party claim does not fall within the category of consequential damages permitted 在 common law bad faith claims. Thus, the contract claim 和 common law bad faith claim were dismissed.

的court also made clear that compensatory 和 consequential damages cannot be recovered for statutory bad faith.

Date of Decision: 六月14, 2017

Koerner诉GEICO Casualty Co。,否。 3:17-cv-455,2017美国区LEXIS 91836(医学博士宾夕法尼亚州,2017年6月14日)(康纳博伊,J。)

的court had previously refused a motion to remand this action.

 

2017年6月不良信仰案件:法院以裁定不接受起诉(费城联邦)

This suit was brought by an 在 surer against its 在 sured’s attorneys 和 an expert retained by its 在 sured’s attorneys 在 a Washington State class action against the 在 surer. 的following are excerpts from the court’s strongly worded opinion. 的court dismissed the case as a sanction, under its 在 herent authority.

“几年前,在华盛顿州法院提起了两项集体诉讼。毫不奇怪,就像在任何诉讼中一样,在这些华盛顿集体诉讼中使用文件引发了争议。 [7星彩开奖结果查询人]与其在费城起诉他们,而不是与原告的律师见面并商议(或在华盛顿法院提出动议)。但是,这还不足以消除[7星彩开奖结果查询人]对侵略的渴望。它也起诉了原告的律师’专家证人和他的公司。”

“[The 在 surer] weaves some clever arguments 在 an attempt to justify its acts of obstruction. However, practicality, legal analysis, 和 common sense all make clear [the 在 surer] is attempting to stalemate the Washington class actions by suing the plaintiffs’ lawyers thousands of miles away from where those class actions are currently being litigated. 的red herrings 在 this case are [the 在 surer]’s alleged ‘claims’ for trade secret misappropriation 和 unjust enrichment. Even if these ‘claims’ were anything more than red herrings—which they are not—they fail as a matter of law.”

“The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In the alternative, defendants move to transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. While transfer might be appropriate 在 this case, there is no need. I will not tolerate the attempted manipulation of our judicial process 在 this case. 的case is dismissed.”

“在这种情况下,当我密切注意时,我不能断定第11条制裁是适当的,因为我发现[7星彩开奖结果查询人]的索赔没有“过分轻率或轻率的。””它们确实具有少量物质,因此将它们略微提高到了“专利不足或轻浮”的水平。”“因此,不能实施第11条制裁。”

“However, I will impose sanctions, pursuant to my 在 herent power, for ‘conduct which abuses the judicial process.’” 的insurer’s “conduct, 在 filing this lawsuit, was done 在 bad faith, vexatiously, 和 for oppressive reasons.” “This is the exact type of case where a response to ‘abusive litigation practices’ is warranted.”

的court dismissed the complaint “in its entirety, without prejudice. Whether [the 在 surer] will again be subject to sanctions under my 在 herent authority (or under Rule 11) will depend upon the renewed strength 和 plausibility of [the] claims 在 its amended complaint, should it decide to take this route 和 file one.”

Date of Decision: 六月13, 2017

GEICO诉Nealey,2017年第17-807号。 LEXIS 91219(于2017年6月13日在美国法学出版社出版)(J.Stengel)

 

2017年6月的不良信仰案件:法院对被7星彩开奖结果查询防御欺诈反假冒(费城联邦)施加分立制裁

的case 在 volved a fire loss. 的insured brought claims seeking coverage, 和 the 在 surer filed 在 surance fraud counterclaims under Pennsylvania’s Insurance Fraud Statute. Before suit, the 在 surer took the 在 sured’s examination under oath, 和 during that examination had asked the 在 sured to preserve his cell phone data.

During litigation, the 在 surer requested cell phone data 在 discovery. 的insured objected, 和 later reported that he had lost his cell phone. 的insurer brought a motion for sanctions, asserting spoliation.

的court observed no material difference between the law governing spoliation under state or federal practice. “Spoliation occurs where ‘the evidence was 在 the party’控制证据与案件中的索赔或抗辩有关;有实际的隐瞒或隐瞒证据;而且,当事人可以合理预见到保存证据的责任。’”

“不提供证据与销毁证据具有相同的实际效果,因此,‘在某些情况下,不提供证据被正确地描述为诽谤。”

制裁取决于法院。在联邦法院中,法院的权力来自《联邦民事诉讼规则》和法院的固有权力。制裁可能包括“以有利于偏见的一方为由驳回索赔或作出判决,压制证据,不利推论,罚款以及律师的费用和成本。”

“在考虑实施何种制裁措施时,初审法院应考虑‘(1)更改或破坏证据的当事方的过失程度; (二)对方的偏见程度; (3)是否有一种较小的制裁措施可以避免对对方的实质性不公平,并且在犯罪方严重过错的情况下,将来会阻止其他人的这种行为。’”

的court readily found that three of the four spoliation elements met, e.g., the cell phone location history, text messages 和 search history were “hugely relevant to both parties’ claims.”

However, the question of actual suppression or withholding goes to 在 tent, 和 is much harder to establish. 的court examined the evidence closely, 和 found the 在 sured lacked credibility, 和 that other evidence supported a finding of spoliation.

的court found that the 在 sured’s degree of fault 在 the spoliation was unmitigated, 和 the spoliation was prejudicial, but chose not to impose the harshest sanction. 的court retained the right to impose more severe sanctions, however, if it was later established that the spoliation was more prejudicial to the 在 surer than the court presently believed.

的court ruled that it would 在 struct the jury “they may 在 fer that if Defendants were permitted to 在 spect [the] cell phone, any evidence would have been unfavorable to Plaintiff.” 的court ordered the 在 sured to pay all fees 和 costs association with the spoliation motion 和 all efforts to obtain records from the cell phone carrier.

Date of Decision: 六月9, 2017

布朗诉伦敦劳埃德律师事务所的某些承销商, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89527, *5 (E.D. Pa. 六月9, 2017) (Joyner, J.)

 

 

2017年6月不良信仰案件:索赔处理流程中没有不良信仰延误(费城联邦)

该简易判决意见涉及一个恶意纠纷,该纠纷是基于在评估财产损失的评估过程中索赔处理的延迟而引起的。 的court had earlier dismissed the 在 sureds’ breach of contract claim, but had allowed the bad faith claim to proceed.

的court first observed that 在 its earlier decision, the dispute over the claim value was not the basis for a breach of contract claim, where the 在 sureds could not show the actual breach of a contractual duty.

在允许恶意投诉继续进行的过程中,法院“明示修改后的投诉将恶意索赔限制在评估程序的延迟上”,没有价值。因此,法院驳回了被7星彩开奖结果查询人目前为低估索赔价值而主张恶意的努力,法院认为这是“不相关的”。

的court summarized the law concerning delay 和 bad faith. “[A] bad faith 在 surance practice can 在 clude an unreasonable delay 在 handling or paying claims.” “Thus, even when ‘an 在 surance claim has been settled 和 paid, Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute provides 在 surance claimants a means of redressing unreasonable delays by their 在 surers.’”

为了根据7星彩开奖结果查询人延迟付款提出不诚实的索赔,原告必须证明:(1)延迟归因于7星彩开奖结果查询人; (2)7星彩开奖结果查询人没有造成延误的合理依据; (3)7星彩开奖结果查询人知道或不顾后果地无视延误的合理依据。”

It is “[t]he plaintiff [who] bears the burden of establishing delay by 清晰而令人信服 evidence.” “A long period of time between demand 和 settlement does not, on its own, necessarily constitute bad faith.” Further, “’[i]f delay is attributable to the need to 在 vestigate further or even to simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred.’”

的court closely analyzed the history of the parties’ conduct of the appraisal process. 的court found the first alleged delay of 5 weeks 在 acknowledging the appraisal demand was de minimis, 和 could not lead a reasonable jury to find bad faith.

此外,在确认需求后,7星彩开奖结果查询人的鉴定人联系了被7星彩开奖结果查询人的鉴定人,但被7星彩开奖结果查询人的鉴定人表示他必须先与被7星彩开奖结果查询人签署协议,才能开始工作。一旦他签署了该协议,两名评估员便执行了联合声明并开始检查。这可能不是恶意主张的依据。

的court also rejected the argument for bad faith during a subsequent 5-month period during the appraisal process. Both appraisers carried out 在 vestigations during the first three months of this period. 的insurer’s appraiser also had lab tests done regarding asbestos remediation, 在 vestigated the HVAC system, 和 conducted extensive research 在 response to the 在 sureds’ claim for engineering 和 architectural fees, which 在 volved multiple 在 terviews with the plaintiffs’ engineer 和 architect.

此后长达一个月的时间流逝,其中一部分包括7星彩开奖结果查询人同意被7星彩开奖结果查询人的鉴定人前往佛罗里达参加其母亲的葬礼。他回来后,两位评估师再次讲话,并将申诉书提交给了公断人。

总而言之,原告无法负担确定推定的“延误是不合理的,只能归因于[7星彩开奖结果查询人],或者[7星彩开奖结果查询人]没有合理的依据来造成任何此类延误”。任何据称的延误都是“法律和7星彩开奖结果查询工作的一部分。”

的eight months at issue from the time of demand to the time of the umpire’s meeting was “relatively minimal,” 和 during “that period, both parties’ appraisers were actively conducting 在 vestigations, with much of the actual delay attributable to plaintiffs’ own adjuster.”

的court granted summary judgment for the 在 surer.

Date of Decision: 六月8, 2017

Dagit诉Allstate财产&伤亡7星彩开奖结果查询公司,第16-3843号,2017年美国地区。 LEXIS 87971(于2017年6月8日编入宾夕法尼亚州)(O'Neill,Jr.,J.)

2017年6月不良信仰案件:因取消政策而引起的纠纷防止了不良信仰索赔的​​驳回(中区)

This case centered on plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant 在 surers simply refused to pay claims under an applicable policy.  的insured pleaded the policy was 在 effect at the time of the 在 juries at issue. 的insurers argued that the policy had been cancelled. 的court could not resolve this fundamental issue at the pleading stage, 和 so denied the motion to dismiss the 在 sured’s bad faith claim.

Date of Decision: 六月9, 2017

TNT Services Corp.,LLC诉休斯顿国际7星彩开奖结果查询集团,No。3:16cv1505,2017年美国专区。 LEXIS 89119(医学博士,宾夕法尼亚州,2017年6月9日)(曼里,J。)

 

 

2017年6月糟糕的信仰案例:UIM动议拒绝了

的excellent Tort Talk 博客 has updated its reporting on post-Koken UIM case law on motions to bifurcate, 最近的一例是否认这种动议.

 

2017年6月不良信仰案件:由于在索赔处理期间缺乏行动而造成的不良信仰案件导致无法获利(中区)

该财产损失案提供了基本的不诚实信用法律的摘要,可用于对事实的分析,然后提供了一些强有力的措辞来提出不诚实信用索赔,而被7星彩开奖结果查询人的自身行为导致了争议的延误。

报价法院:

“为了成功通过恶意索赔,原告必须证明“(一)7星彩开奖结果查询人缺乏合理的拒绝给付依据; (2)7星彩开奖结果查询人知道或不顾后果地无视其合理的依据。 ” Verdetto诉State Farm Fire 和伤亡公司,837 F.Supp 2d。 480,484(博士后2011年),确认 510美联储Appx。 209,2013 W.L. 175175(3d.Cir.2013)(引述Klinger诉State Farm Mutual Insurance Company,115 F.3d 230,233(3d。Cir。1997)。此外,原告必须以明确和令人信服的证据表明恶意。Polselli诉Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 23 F.3d 747,751(3d。Cir。1994)。一家7星彩开奖结果查询公司若要证明其有拒绝或延迟支付理赔的合理依据,则无需证明其调查得出了正确的结论或结论Krisa v。Equitable Life Assurance Company,113 F.Supp 2d。694,704(MDPa。2000),不需要7星彩开奖结果查询公司表明以下事实:“它得出结论的过程是完美无缺的,或者它采用的调查方法消除了与结论不符的可能性。”ID。取而代之的是,7星彩开奖结果查询公司必须证明其进行了充分彻底的审查或调查,以为其行动奠定合理的基础。 ID。“The ‘clear 和 convincing’标准要求原告出庭‘证据是如此清晰,直接,有说服力且令人信服,以至于可以毫不犹豫地就被告是否有恶意行事而定罪。””J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company诉Pilosi,393 F.3d 356,367(3d。Cir。2004)。”

在这种情况下,7星彩开奖结果查询公司为因火灾而损失的不动产和个人财产支付了“不少于$ 347,000”,剩下的超过$ 17,000的绿化争议。该合同纠纷不能通过即决判决解决。但是,恶意索赔是通过即决判决解决的,在该判决中,法院认为陪审团可以发现恶意,这是“不可想象的”。

的bad faith claim centered on the timing of making payments for personal property loss (which had been ultimately paid to the policy limits). 的court observed that the analytic framework for measuring claims of delay 在 making such payments began with the terms of the 在 surance policy itself. Unambiguous policy language placed most responsibility for the timing 和 amount of payments on actions required of the 在 sureds. In this case, the 在 sureds did not provide required documentation for over a year.

的court analyzed the history 和 concluded: “In short, Plaintiffs’ failure to perform their reporting duty under the contract impeded, wittingly or unwittingly, [the 在 surer’s] 在 vestigation of their claim. Thus, the delay 在 payment for the value of their personal property was a direct result of Plaintiffs’ failure to perform their contractual duties 和, as such, may not serve as an appropriate basis for a finding of bad faith on Defendant’s part. Stated another way, Plaintiffs may not now seek to profit due to their lack of action.”

决定日期:2017年5月30日

特纳诉国家农场火灾& Cas. Co., 第3:15-CV-906号,2017年美国地区。 LEXIS 81922(医学博士宾夕法尼亚州2017年5月30日)(J.Conaboy)