PHAN-KRAMER v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY

Opinion

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

LOANN T. PHAN-KRAMER and JONERIK KRAMER, W/H

, Case No. 2:23-cv-01867-JDW

v.

AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY,

.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Loann T. Phan-Kramer and Jonerik Kramer sued American States Insurance Company for underinsured motorist coverage, won, and collected. Now, they have sued American States again asserting statutory bad faith, breach of contract/good faith and fair dealing, and loss of consortium. Because I conclude that the statute of limitations bars the bad faith claim, I will grant American States’s Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings in part. However, cannot bar the other two claims because Plaintiffs assert allegations based on events that post-date the filing of their complaint in the first litigation. Accordingly, I will deny American States’s Motion on those two claims. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts

On April 15, 2016, an underinsured motorist rear-ended Plaintiff Loann T. Phan- Kramer. She suffered a full thickness tear of her rotator cuff, as well as other neck and back injuries. At the time of the accident, American States Insurance Company insured

Ms. Phan-Kramer, including underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits. After suing then settling with the other driver, Plaintiffs filed their UIM insurance claim with American States. American States denied that claim. On July 15, 2019, Plaintiffs sued. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor. On September 27, 2021, Judge McHugh

accordingly entered judgment and the insurer satisfied the verdict. B. Procedural History Plaintiffs have sued American States again for its handling of the UIM claim and conduct in the previous litigation. On March 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Praecipe To Issue

Writ Of Summons in the Delaware County Court Of Common Pleas. After Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, American States removed the case to this Court. Plaintiffs then amended their Complaint as a matter of right to avoid a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ Amended

Complaint asserts three counts: Count I – Bad Faith Pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371; Count II – Breach of Contract/Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and Count III – Loss of Consortium. Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time, but I denied leave because the proposed amendment was futile. American States has filed a Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings. The Motion is ripe for disposition.

II. LEGAL STANDARD “After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). A court can grant a Rule 12(c)

motion “if, on the basis of the pleadings, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” , 938 F.3d 466, 470 n.7 (3d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). A Rule 12(c) motion “is analyzed under the same standards that apply to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion[,]” construing all allegations and inferences in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. , 935 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). The moving party bears the burden of persuasion. , 530 F.3d 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2008). III. DISCUSSION

A. Bad Faith The statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ claim. The statute of limitations on a bad faith claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371 is two years. , 932 A.2d

877, 885 (Pa. 2007). The statute begins to run when the insurer first refuses to pay the claim. , 416 F.3d 214, 225 (3d Cir. 2005). When I denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, I analyzed Plaintiffs’ bad faith allegations and concluded that the statute of limitations began to run on June 28, 2019, when American States denied their claim. (ECF No. 24 at 6). I rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments that they did not know about the denial and that American States engaged in

ongoing refusals to reevaluate their claims. That analysis applies with full force to the arguments that Plaintiffs make now, and based on that analysis, I conclude that Plaintiffs’ time to file this claim expired on June 28, 2021. Therefore, I will grant American States’s

Motion on this claim. B. Breach of Contract/Loss of Consortium American States’s only argument about the breach of contract and loss of consortium claims is that and/or collateral estoppel bar those claims.

applies upon the demonstration of three elements: “(1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.” , 726 F.3d 387, 394 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). Plaintiffs argue that

American States cannot meet the “same cause of action” requirement. I agree. The Third Circuit has adopted a bright-line rule that cannot bar “claims that are predicated on events that postdate the filing of the initial complaint.”

, 648 F.3d 172, 178 (3d Cir. 2011); , 140 S. Ct. 1589, 1596 (2020). Because Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and loss consortium claims both rely (at least in part) on American States’s conduct following the filing of the initial lawsuit, cannot preclude these claims. 462 F.3d 521, 528 (6th Cir. 2006) (analyzing in context of an initial UIM case and later bad faith claim based on conduct after

filing of the first complaint). Although the allegations in the Amended Complaint and the original litigation share similarities, the presence of “significant factual overlap” between both complaints is insufficient to invoke when Plaintiffs’ current claims also

rely on facts following July 2019. , 648 F.3d at 178. Even American States acknowledges that the Amended Complaint “focus[es] . . . on the ways that American States supposedly acted in bad faith during the litigation and trial of the underlying UIM/consortium case.” (ECF No. 28-4 at 6). Because the bright-line rule of bars

the application of , I will deny American States’s Motion on these two claims. IV. CONCLUSION The statute of limitations bars the bad faith claims in this case, but does not bar the breach of contract and loss of consortium claims. Therefore, I will grant

American States’s Motion in part. An appropriate Order follows. BY THE COURT:

JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J. September 14, 2023