GRIFFIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 29, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-04214
StatusUnknown

This text of GRIFFIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (GRIFFIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
GRIFFIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, (E.D. Pa. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AVIS GRIFFIN : CIVIL ACTION : v. : NO. 24-4214 : STATE FARM AUTO INSURANCE : COMPANY :

MEMORANDUM KEARNEY, J. August 29, 2024 A person buying auto insurance coverage through a defined insurance policy may be entitled to recover for injuries covered by the policy after she follows the requirements of the policy. She cannot sue for recovery of underinsured motorist benefits arising from a car accident offered through the policy, for example, if she agreed to only sue after resolving the claims with the other driver or suing the other driver in the same case. She also cannot sue the insurer for bad faith when the insurer is following the unambiguous terms of their insurance contract. We today dismiss an insured’s pro se complaint for breach of contract and statutory bad faith because she has not complied with her insurance agreement to date. She cannot presently sue on the policy. And she has not yet plead the insurer’s denial of underinsured motorist benefits is in bad faith. We grant her leave to timely amend her allegations for breach of contract, possibly add additional parties, and clarify how her insurer’s conduct rises to the level of statutory bad faith.

I. Alleged Facts

Avis Griffin purchased up to $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage from State Farm Automobile Insurance Company for losses incurred in 2022.1 State Farm agreed to pay compensatory damages for bodily injury Ms. Griffin is legally entitled to recover from an owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle.2 State Farm defines “underinsured motor vehicle” as “a land motor vehicle…for which the total limits of insurance and self-insurance for bodily injury liability from all sources…are less than the amount of the insured’s damages; or have been reduced by payments to persons other than you and resident relatives to less than the amount of the insured’s damages.”3

The parties agreed, for purposes of deciding the fault and amount for underinsured motor vehicle coverage, 1. a. The insured and we must agree to the answers to the following two questions:

(1) Is the insured legally entitled to recover compensatory damages from the owner or driver of the underinsured motor vehicle?

(2) If the insured and we agree that the answer to 1.a.(1) above is yes, then what is the amount of the compensatory damages that the insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or driver of the underinsured motor vehicle?

b. If there is no agreement on the answer to either question in 1.a. above, then the insured shall:

(1) file a lawsuit, in a state or federal court that has jurisdiction, against:

(a) us;

(b) the owner and driver of the underinsured motor vehicle unless we have consented to a settlement offer proposed by or on behalf of such owner or driver; and

(c) any other party or parties who may be legally liable for the insured’s damages[.]4

Ms. Griffin’s May 19, 2022 car accident. An unidentified driver collided her car with Ms. Griffin’s car on May 19, 2022 in Norristown.5 Ms. Griffin suffered injuries to her neck, back, and shoulder.6 She suffered emotionally.7 Ms. Griffin promptly reported the accident to her insurer State Farm and submitted claims for property damage and bodily injury.8 Norristown’s Police Report points to Ms. Griffin’s careless driving.

Norristown Police report Ms. Griffin made an improper and careless left turn from eastbound Lafayette Street onto northbound Mill Street when Bessy J. Hernandez-Valladares struck Ms. Griffin’s car on the passenger side.9 Ms. Griffin informed State Farm’s Claims Teams of alleged inaccuracies in the Norristown police report and disputed the description of her making an “improper/careless turn.”10 Mr. Griffin sent her insurer State Farm video footage and photographs to support her perceived inaccuracies in the police report.11 State Farm finds Ms. Griffin responsible. State Farm accepted full liability for the accident on June 6, 2022 without informing Ms. Griffin.12 Ms. Griffin spoke with State Farm Representative Candyce Bounds on June 26, 2023.13 State Farm representative Bounds told Ms. Griffin she was 100% liable for the accident

based on the police report.14 Ms. Griffin sends demand letter. Ms. Griffin sent a demand letter to State Farm attaching medical bills.15 State Farm rejected the demand explaining its medical payment coverage “is a first party coverage” and “[a]ny pain and suffering claim would need to be brought against American Freedom Insurance, who is the insurance carrier for the other driver, or against Penndot who you have indicated as contributing to the accident.”16 II. Analysis Ms. Griffin pro se sued State Farm for breach of contract and statutory bad faith for failing to pay her underinsured motorist benefits under the Policy. State Farm asks we dismiss Ms. Griffin’s claims for breach of contract and statutory bad faith.17 Ms. Griffin counters she

plead adequate facts to allow us to plausibly infer State Farm breached the contract and engaged in statutory bad faith claim.18 Ms. Griffin does not plead a fact basis for a breach of contract or statutory bad faith claim. We dismiss both claims without prejudice and grant her leave to amend her Complaint if she can do so consistent with the known facts. A. Ms. Griffin does not plead a breach of contract claim. Ms. Griffin pleads and now argues State Farm breached the insurance contract by failing to pay underinsured motorist benefits owed to her under the Policy. State Farm moves to dismiss the breach of contract claim arguing Ms. Griffin does not satisfy the conditions under the Policy for asserting an underinsured motorist claim and does not sue all required parties. We agree with State Farm. But Ms. Griffin may be able to cure this deficiency through a timely amended

Complaint. Ms. Griffin sues State Farm for underinsured motorist benefits. She and State Farm agreed State Farm would pay compensatory damages for bodily injury Ms. Griffin is legally entitled to recover from the driver of an underinsured motor vehicle.19 The Policy defines “underinsured motor vehicle” as “a land motor vehicle…for which the total limits of insurance and self-insurance for bodily injury liability from all sources…are less than the amount of the insured’s damages; or have been reduced by payments to persons other than you and resident relatives to less than the amount of the insured’s damages.”20 The Norristown Police reported Ms. Hernandez-Valladares is the other driver involved in the accident. Ms. Griffin can recover underinsured motorist benefits if Ms. Hernandez- Valladares’s total insurance limits are less than the amount of Ms. Griffin’s damages. But Ms. Griffin does not allege facts about Ms. Hernandez-Valladares’s limits of insurance, whether Ms. Griffin made a claim against Ms. Hernandez-Valladares, or whether Ms. Griffin’s damages

exceed the limits of insurance for Ms. Hernandez-Valladares. Ms. Griffin does not plead a fact basis for her claim State Farm owes her underinsured motorist benefits. Ms. Griffin also agreed she could only obtain underinsured motorist coverage if she and State Farm agree Ms. Griffin is legally entitled to recover a certain amount of compensatory damages from Ms. Hernandez-Valladares.21 Ms. Griffin must otherwise file a lawsuit against (1) State Farm, (2) the owner and driver of the underinsured motor vehicle unless State Farm consents to a settlement offer proposed by or on behalf of such owner or driver, and (3) any other party who may be legally liable for Ms. Griffin’s damages.22 Ms. Griffin does not allege State Farm consented to a settlement offer proposed by or on behalf of Ms. Hernandez-Valladares. So, as she agreed, she must sue State Farm, Ms. Hernandez-Valladares, and any other legally liable

party. Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Coyne v. Allstate Insurance
771 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
Rancosky v. Washington National Ins. Co., Aplt.
170 A.3d 364 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Condio v. Erie Insurance Exchange
899 A.2d 1136 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GRIFFIN v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-company-paed-2024.