J-A25032-23
2024 PA Super 2
WATCHWORD WORLDWIDE, A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 501(C)(3) NON-PROFIT ENTITY : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellant : : : v. : : : No. 1221 WDA 2022 ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 21, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD-19-002791
WATCHWORD WORLDWIDE, A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 501(C)(3) NON-PROFIT ENTITY : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE : : No. 1290 WDA 2022 Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 21, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD-19-002791
BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*
OPINION BY COLINS, J.: FILED: January 9, 2024
These matters are consolidated cross-appeals from an $88,750
judgment entered in favor of Watchword Worldwide (Watchword) and against
Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie) in an insurance breach of contract and bad
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A25032-23
faith case following trial. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the
judgment on the ground that Erie was entitled to judgment in its favor as a
matter of law on both the breach of contract and bad faith claims.
This case arises out of an insurance claim for loss of electronic data as
a result of a computer hacking incident. Watchword, a 501(c)(3) non-profit
entity, produces videos of the New Testament of the Bible. Trial Court
Opinion, 3/14/23, at 1; N.T. Trial at 132-33. Watchword sold its videos and
transmitted them to its customers’ iPhones through a server owned and
operated by GoDaddy, Inc. (GoDaddy) and a server owned and operated by
Apple Inc. (Apple). Trial Court Opinion, 3/14/23, at 1-2; N.T. Trial at 133-36.
This process required both a mobile application that customers used to order
and pay for the videos and an application programing interface (API) that
authenticated the sale and delivered the video. N.T. Trial at 133-36, 212.
Watchword’s videos and API were stored on the GoDaddy server. Id. at 135-
36, 151-52, 170, 211-12. The mobile application was on the Apple server.
Id. at 134, 177, 181. Watchword paid GoDaddy a license fee to use the
GoDaddy server or leased an account on that server, but the server was owned
by GoDaddy and not by Watchword. Id. at 170, 151-52, 298, 304-05.
In early April 2017, Watchword discovered that an unknown hacker had
deleted Watchword’s videos and API from the GoDaddy server. N.T. Trial at
183-84, 189-90. No electronic data was deleted from any computer owned
by Watchword. Id. at 183-84, 303. Watchword had copies of the videos that
-2- J-A25032-23
were unaffected by the hack of the GoDaddy server, and Truefit Solutions
(Truefit), Watchword’s consultant that had developed the video dissemination
system for Watchword, had a copy of the API. Id. at 136-37, 172, 195, 213.
The mobile application on Apple’s server was not damaged by the hack of the
GoDaddy server. Id. at 183-85, 189. On May 7, 2017, Watchword, however,
removed the mobile application from Apple’s server to prevent adverse
reactions from customers and Apple because the mobile application could not
work without the videos and API on the GoDaddy server. Id. at 137-38, 154-
55, 191-92.
At the time that the videos and API were deleted from the GoDaddy
server, Watchword was insured by Erie under a property damage and liability
insurance policy that included coverage for the reproduction or replacement
of electronic data. N.T. Trial at 354-56; Erie Insurance Policy Q970967190
(the Policy), Commercial Property Coverage Part at 11 § IV(C)(2). The Policy
provided with respect to electronic data coverage:
We will cover the expenses incurred to reproduce or replace your “electronic data” when destruction or corruption is caused by a peril insured against including loss by theft. This includes your “electronic data” that is destroyed or corrupted by magnetic injury, “accident”, “electronic circuitry impairment”, virus, harmful code, or similar instruction introduced into or enacted on a computer system (including “electronic data”) or a network to which it is connected, designed to damage or destroy any part of the system or disrupts its normal operation. Coverage is limited to “electronic data” which is owned by you, licensed or leased to you, originates and resides in your computers, and is used in the e-commerce activity of your business.
-3- J-A25032-23
* * * “Loss” or damage to “electronic data” will be valued at the cost of reproduction or replacement including the cost of data entry, re- programming, and computer consultation services. But we will not pay the cost to duplicate research that led to the development of your “electronic data”. To the extent that “electronic data” is not reproduced or replaced, the “loss” will be valued at the cost of replacement of the “media” on which “electronic data” was stored, with blank “media” of substantially identical type. * * * “Media” means materials on which “electronic data” are recorded, such as magnetic tapes, disc packs, paper tapes, and cards. We will pay for the expenses incurred in the reproduction or replacement of your “electronic data” which is in excess of the deductible amount shown in the “Declarations”.
Policy, Commercial Property Coverage Part at 11 § IV(C)(2) (emphasis
added). The Policy declarations set forth a deductible of $2,500. Id.,
Declarations at 1. The Policy also contains an exclusion that excludes from
coverage electronic data “which cannot be replaced with the same kind or
quality.” Id., Commercial Property Coverage Part at 12 § IV(C)(4). Although
the electronic data reproduction or replacement section of the Policy contained
a coverage limit of $25,000, id., Commercial Property Coverage Part at 11 §
IV(C)(2), the Policy contained an endorsement that provided up to a total of
$250,000 in coverage for expenses of reproduction or replacement of
electronic data, damage to electronic data processing equipment, and a
number of other types of business losses. Id., Office Enhancements
Endorsement Commercial Property Coverage Part at 1 § B.
On July 17, 2017, Watchword filed a claim with Erie for the loss caused
by the deletion of its electronic data from the GoDaddy server. N.T. Trial at
-4- J-A25032-23
84. Erie denied Watchword’s claim on the grounds, inter alia, that the Policy
did not cover the loss because the electronic data that was destroyed was not
on Watchword’s computers and on the ground that the cost of replacing the
videos on the GoDaddy server from the copies that Watchword still had was
less than the $2,500 deductible. Id. at 121-23, 248-50, 253-56.
On February 22, 2019, Watchword filed this action against Erie. In its
complaint, Watchword asserted claims for breach of contract for the failure to
pay its claim for the cost of replacing electronic data, bad faith denial of its
claim, and violation of the Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law (UTPCPL). Amended Complaint ¶¶14-35. Erie in its answer denied that
the Policy covered Watchword’s loss, denied that it breached the insurance
contract, and denied that it acted in bad faith. Answer and New Matter ¶¶14-
21, 24-30, 48-59. Following discovery, Erie filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking judgment in its favor on all of Watchword’s claims. On June
8, 2020, the court granted the motion with respect to Watchword’s UTPCPL
claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice but denied summary judgment
on the breach of contract and bad faith claims. Trial Court Order, 6/8/20.
Watchword’s breach of contract claim was tried to a jury from
September 15 to 21, 2021. At trial, Watchword claimed damages of
$168,000. N.T. Trial at 156. These damages were based on the cost of
creating a new mobile application, upgraded to the standards required by
Apple to put it on Apple’s server after the original mobile application had been
-5- J-A25032-23
deleted, and upgrading the videos. Id. at 156, 159-60, 172-73, 179, 181.
Watchword admitted that the mobile application on Apple’s server would have
worked properly and would not have had to be removed if Watchword had put
the videos and API back on the GoDaddy server from the copies that it had of
those items. Id. at 193-94. Watchword also admitted that it did not attempt
to have the videos and API put back on the GoDaddy server. Id. at 194-95.
Truefit’s CEO, called by Watchword as a damages witness, testified that the
cost of having the videos and API put back on the GoDaddy server would have
been $1,500 to $2,500 if Watchword had hired it to do so in 2017 and that
the cost of restoring Watchword’s system with the upgrades required by Apple
at the time of the 2021 trial was $10,000 to $20,000. Id. at 213-14, 221-22.
Erie moved for a compulsory nonsuit at the end of Watchword’s case and for
a directed verdict at end of trial on the grounds, inter alia, that there was no
coverage for Watchword’s loss because the electronic data that was deleted
was not on a Watchword computer and that the amount of loss payable did
not exceed the deductible. Id. at 313-18, 373. Both motions were denied by
the trial court. Id. at 319, 374.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Watchword, finding that Erie had
breached the insurance contract and awarding Watchword $18,750 in
damages. N.T. Trial at 454-55; Verdict Slip. Erie filed a post-trial motion
seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the same grounds
as it sought a compulsory nonsuit and directed verdict, including the grounds
-6- J-A25032-23
that there was no coverage for Watchword’s loss because the electronic data
that was deleted was not on a Watchword computer and that the amount of
loss payable under the Policy did not exceed the deductible, and seeking in
the alternative a new trial. On November 16, 2021, the trial court entered an
order denying Erie’s post-trial motion.
A nonjury trial of Watchword’s bad faith claim was scheduled for
February 2022. Prior to the date of that trial, the parties agreed to proceed
by argument based on the trial evidence and written submissions, and on
February 16, 2022, the parties presented argument to the trial court on the
bad faith claim. N.T. Bad Faith Hearing at 2-3. The only additional testimony
at this bad faith hearing was brief testimony of Watchword’s CEO concerning
its compensatory damages that added nothing concerning Erie’s conduct in
denying coverage. Id. at 133-46. On June 30, 2022, the trial court issued
its nonjury verdict on the bad faith claim, finding that Erie acted in bad faith
because it denied coverage on the ground that the GoDaddy server was not
on Watchword’s property and because Erie relied on Truefit, rather than
Watchword, in evaluating what had been deleted from the GoDaddy server.
Memorandum and Verdict of the Court at 2-3; Non-Jury Verdict. Based on
these bad faith findings, the trial court awarded Watchword $20,000 in
punitive damages and $50,000 in attorney fees and costs. Memorandum and
Verdict of the Court at 3; Non-Jury Verdict. Both parties filed post-trial
motions with respect to the bad faith verdict. The trial court denied both
-7- J-A25032-23
parties’ post-trial motions on September 30, 2022, and judgment was entered
against Erie on the verdicts in the amount of $88,750 on October 21, 2022.
Both parties filed timely appeals from this judgment.
Erie argues in its appeal (1) that it was entitled to JNOV on Watchword’s
breach of contract claim on the ground that there was no coverage for
Watchword’s loss because the videos and API that were deleted were not on
a Watchword computer; (2) that it was entitled to JNOV on the breach of
contract claim on the ground that the amount of loss payable under the Policy
did not exceed the deductible; and (3) that it was entitled to JNOV on the bad
faith claim on the ground that that it had a reasonable basis for failing to pay
the claim. Watchword in its appeal asserts that the punitive damages award
and attorney fees and costs award on its bad faith claim were inadequate.1
We address Erie’s arguments first because, if Erie was entitled to JNOV on
Watchword’s bad faith claim, Watchword’s challenges to the amounts awarded
on that claim are moot.
Whether the trial court erred in denying Erie’s motions for JNOV is a
question of law subject to our plenary review. Shamnoski v. PG Energy,
858 A.2d 589, 593 (Pa. 2004). There are two bases on which JNOV may be
1 Watchword also makes arguments that the trial court did not adequately address its bad faith claims. These arguments, however, are not a separate issue. Instead, they are relevant to these appeals as a response to Erie’s challenge to the bad faith verdict and as support for Watchword’s challenges to the amount of the bad faith awards.
-8- J-A25032-23
granted: (1) where the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and
(2) where the evidence is such that no two reasonable minds could disagree
that the judgment should have been in favor of the movant. Linde v. Linde,
220 A.3d 1119, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2019); United Environmental Group, Inc.
v. GKK McKnight, LP, 176 A.3d 946, 959 (Pa. Super. 2017). In determining
whether either of these bases for JNOV has been established, this Court must
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed at
trial. Linde, 220 A.3d at 1140.
Erie’s first issue, that the Policy did not cover Watchword’s loss of the
videos and API, turns on the interpretation of the Policy’s language. The
interpretation of an insurance policy is an issue of law over which this Court’s
review is plenary and de novo. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v.
Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286, 290 (Pa. 2007); Penn Psychiatric Center,
Inc v. United States Liability Insurance Co., 257 A.3d 1241, 1248 (Pa.
Super. 2021). There is therefore no deference to the jury’s verdict on this
issue.
The burden is on the insured to show that its claim is within the policy’s
coverage. Penn Psychiatric Center, Inc, 257 A.3d at 1249; Estate of
O'Connell v. Progressive Insurance Co., 79 A.3d 1134, 1138 (Pa. Super.
2013). Where coverage is denied based on an exclusion, the burden is on the
insurer to prove the applicability of the exclusion. Penn Psychiatric Center,
Inc, 257 A.3d at 1249; Erie Insurance Group v. Catania, 95 A.3d 320,
-9- J-A25032-23
322-23 (Pa. Super. 2014). Insurance policy provisions that are ambiguous
must be construed in favor of the insured. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d at 290;
Swarner v. Mutual Benefit Group, 72 A.3d 641, 645 (Pa. Super. 2013). An
insurance policy provision is ambiguous, however, only if it is reasonably
susceptible of more than one construction. Penn Psychiatric Center, Inc,
257 A.3d at 1249; Swarner, 72 A.3d at 645.
The Policy’s insurance for reproduction or replacement of electronic data
provides coverage only if the electronic data that was destroyed or corrupted
“resides in your computers.” Policy, Commercial Property Coverage Part at
11 § IV(C)(2). What this policy language covers is a question of first
impression. The parties cite no case law interpreting this language in an
insurance policy and there do not appear to be any court decisions in
Pennsylvania or any other jurisdiction addressing the issue here.
The term “your computers” is not defined in the Policy. The term “your”
clearly means the insured, which is Watchword. The Policy therefore clearly
provides coverage only where the computer on which data is destroyed or
corrupted is a Watchword computer. Watchword had computers of its own,
an iPhone that it used in its sale of the Bible videos through the Apple
application and production computers. N.T. Trial at 153, 300. No data on
those computers was deleted or corrupted. Id. at 183-84, 303. Rather, the
loss of electronic data for which Watchword claimed coverage was the deletion
of Watchword’s videos and API from the GoDaddy server by an unknown
- 10 - J-A25032-23
hacker. Id. at 181-83, 189, 303. Watchword leased or had a license to use
an account on that third-party computer, but the computer was operated by
the third party, GoDaddy, not by Watchword. N.T. Trial at 151-52, 170, 298,
304-05.
The term “your computers” can reasonably be understood to mean the
insured’s own computers and not computers controlled and operated by third
parties that the insured used under a license or lease. This construction is
supported by the Policy’s use of the terms “leased” and “licensed” in describing
the electronic data that is covered and the omission of these terms when
referring to the location where insured data must reside. Policy, Commercial
Property Coverage Part at 11 § IV(C)(2) (“‘electronic data’ which is owned by
you, licensed or leased to you [and] originates and resides in your
computers”).2 Absent a definition of the term or case law interpreting this
policy language, however, “your computers” could also reasonably be
understood to encompass a computer that the insured used under license or
2 Watchword’s argument that its data on the GoDaddy server was clearly covered by the Policy because the evidence showed that the GoDaddy server was part of Watchword’s “network” or “computer system network,” N.T. Trial at 298, 351-52, is without merit. The Policy’s coverage for reproduction or replacement of electronic data covers only electronic data residing in the insured’s “computers,” not electronic data residing in the insured’s “network” or “computer system network,” and uses terms “computers,” “computer system,” and “network,” as distinct from each other, with “computer system” and “network” only used with respect to the source of the harm to the electronic data, not the location of the insured’s electronic data that was deleted or damaged. Policy, Commercial Property Coverage Part at 11 § IV(C)(2).
- 11 - J-A25032-23
lease, given the common understanding of “your” as sometimes including
items that the person in question does not own but has a right to use and
uses. We therefore conclude that term is ambiguous. Because the Policy is
ambiguous, the term must be construed in favor of Watchword to provide
coverage for Watchword’s electronic data that was stored on the GoDaddy
server. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d at 290; Swarner, 72 A.3d at 645. The
trial court therefore did not err in holding that Erie was not entitled to JNOV
on the ground that Watchword’s loss was not covered by the Policy.3
In its second issue, Erie argues that Watchword did not prove that Erie’s
failure to pay Watchword’s claim breached the insurance contract because the
evidence at trial showed that the loss did not exceed the Policy’s deductible.
We agree.
The Policy provides that Erie will pay only for expenses for reproduction
or replacement of electronic data that are in excess of the Policy’s $2,500
deductible. Policy, Declarations at 1, Commercial Property Coverage Part at
11 § IV(C)(2). The evidence at trial was undisputed that that Watchword had
3 To the extent that Erie makes an additional argument that “your computers”
cannot include the GoDaddy server because the Policy requires that the covered property be within 1,500 feet of Watchword’s premises, Erie’s Brief at 25-26, that argument is without merit. The sections of the Policy limiting coverage to loss of or damage to covered property on or “the premises described in the ‘Declarations’” and “within 1,500 feet thereof” are other coverages provided in Section I of the Policy. Policy, Commercial Property Coverage Part at 1-3 § I(1)-(3). The coverage for electronic data is under a different section of the Policy, Section IV, and contains no such locational restriction. Id., Commercial Property Coverage Part at 11 § IV(C)(2).
- 12 - J-A25032-23
undamaged copies of the videos and API available to it that could have been
reinstalled on the GoDaddy server after the deletions were discovered. N.T.
Trial at 136-37, 171-72, 193, 195, 213, 221-22. Watchword’s own evidence
showed that the cost of replacing all of the deleted electronic data by using
those copies to reinstall its videos and API on the GoDaddy server was $2,500
or less. Id. at 213, 222. The cost of reproduction or replacement of the
electronic data that was deleted from GoDaddy server therefore did not
exceed the Policy’s deductible.
The only basis for Watchword’s claim that its damages exceeded the
$2,500 deductible is that the cost of replacing the mobile application on the
Apple server after Watchword removed the existing mobile application and of
upgrading it to the standards that Apple required for new mobile applications
was $10,000 to $20,000. N.T. Trial at 155-56, 159-60, 214. This argument
fails for two reasons.
First, while Watchword was justified in not simply leaving the non-
functioning mobile application on the Apple server, it did not remove the
application until May 7, 2017, a month after the loss of the videos and API
was discovered, and it was undisputed that the problem could have been fixed
without removing the mobile application by reinstalling the videos and API
from the existing copies. N.T. Trial at 191-94. There was no basis on which
the jury could find that the videos and API could not have been reinstalled on
the GoDaddy server before May 7, 2017. Rather, Watchword admitted that it
- 13 - J-A25032-23
made no attempt to even inquire about reinstalling the videos and API, and
the only evidence introduced at trial as to the amount of time that
reinstallation would have taken was testimony that the videos and API could
have been completely reinstalled from the existing copies in “[a] matter of
hours.” Id. at 194, 343.
Second, the Policy does not cover the cost of upgrading lost or damaged
electronic data, as it specifically excludes from coverage electronic data “which
cannot be replaced with the same kind or quality.” Policy, Commercial
Property Coverage Part at 12 § IV(C)(4). The only costs that exceeded the
deductible were for an upgraded mobile application and upgraded videos, not
for replacement of the same quality videos, API, or mobile application. N.T.
Trial at 155-56, 159-60, 214.
Because Watchword’s own evidence established that the cost of
replacing its lost electronic data, the videos and API, did not exceed the
Policy’s $2,500 deductible, Erie’s failure to pay Watchword’s claim did not
breach Erie’s obligations under the Policy. Policy, Commercial Property
Coverage Part at 11 § IV(C)(2). Erie was therefore entitled to JNOV on
Watchword’s breach of contract claim.
In its remaining issue, Erie argues that it was entitled to judgment in its
favor on Watchword’s bad faith claim. This issue likewise merits relief.
An insurance bad faith claim is a statutory cause of action under Section
8371 of Pennsylvania Judicial Code, which provides:
- 14 - J-A25032-23
In an action arising under an insurance policy, if the court finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured, the court may take all of the following actions: (1) Award interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. (2) Award punitive damages against the insurer. (3) Assess court costs and attorney fees against the insurer.
42 Pa.C.S. § 8371. To prevail on a bad faith claim under Section 8371, the
plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) that the insurer did not have a
reasonable basis for denying the claim for benefits under the policy and (2)
that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in
denying the claim. Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Co., 170
A.3d 364, 365, 377 (Pa. 2017); Wenk v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,
228 A.3d 540, 547-58 (Pa. Super. 2020); Terletsky v. Prudential Property
& Casualty Insurance Co., 649 A.2d 680, 688 (Pa. Super. 1994). The
plaintiff must prove both of these elements by clear and convincing evidence.
Rancosky, 170 A.3d at 377; Wenk, 228 A.3d at 547-58; Terletsky. 649
A.2d at 688. Even if a denial of coverage is erroneous, bad faith cannot be
shown if the insurer denied coverage based on an interpretation of the policy
language that is consistent with policy language and the law on the question
is unclear. J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 626
A.2d 502, 510 (Pa. 1993) (no bad faith where law on coverage issue was
unclear and competing coverage positions were reasonable); Terletsky. 649
A.2d at 690 (no bad faith based on failure to allow stacking of uninsured
motorist policies where law on stacking was unclear at the time).
- 15 - J-A25032-23
Here, the trial court found that Erie acted in bad faith in two respects,
that its conclusion that there was no coverage because the GoDaddy server
was not on Watchword’s property was unreasonable and that Erie acted
unreasonably in concluding that only videos and no API had been deleted from
the GoDaddy server. Memorandum and Verdict of the Court at 2-3. Denial
of coverage based solely on the physical location of the GoDaddy server (as
opposed to the fact that it was not Watchword’s computer) could be found
unreasonable because, as discussed in footnote 3 above, the provisions
concerning location of the damaged property are not applicable to the
electronic data coverage. Although Erie’s conclusion that no API had been lost
was based on information obtained and confirmed from Watchword’s
consultant Truefit that developed the API and Truefit did not correct that
erroneous information for more than two years, N.T. Trial at 206, 219-21, Erie
knew that Watchword was contending that the API had been deleted and also
did not change its coverage position after Truefit corrected the misinformation.
Watchword argues that other actions by Erie that the trial court did not find
(quoting a lower $25,000 coverage limit, presenting allegedly inaccurate
testimony at trial, and setting allegedly arbitrary reserve limits) also
constituted bad faith.
None of these findings or contentions, however, can show that Erie had
no reasonable basis for denying benefits under the Policy, let alone show lack
of a reasonable basis by clear and convincing evidence. Whatever other
- 16 - J-A25032-23
statements it made or conclusions it reached, Erie denied payment of
Watchword’s claim on the ground that there was no coverage because the
Policy required that the destroyed or corrupted electronic data “resides in your
computers” and the deleted electronic data was on a GoDaddy computer and
on the ground that the loss, even if covered, did not exceed the deductible.
N.T. Trial at 121-23, 248-51, 253-56. Both of those grounds were reasonable
grounds for denying Watchword’s claim.
While we have concluded that Watchword’s videos and API on the
GoDaddy server fall within the Policy’s coverage because the term “your
computers” is ambiguous, the conclusion that “your computers” is limited to
Watchword’s own computers was a reasonable interpretation of the Policy, as
it is supported by the Policy language and there was no decisional law contrary
to that interpretation. Because it was reasonable, even though erroneous,
this ground for denial of Watchword’s claim as a matter of law was not bad
faith. J.H. France Refractories Co., 626 A.2d at 510; Terletsky. 649 A.2d
at 690.
Erie’s conclusion that Watchword’s claim should be denied because the
loss did not exceed the Policy’s deductible was also reasonable. Although the
fact that the API was deleted would increase the cost of reproduction or
replacement and Erie’s belief that it had not been deleted was erroneous,
Erie’s conclusion that Watchword’s claim did not exceed the deductible was
correct because the cost of reproduction or replacement of both the videos
- 17 - J-A25032-23
and the API was $2,500 or less. N.T. Trial at 213, 221-22. Because this basis
for rejecting the claim was correct, Erie’s denial of the claim on this ground
necessarily was reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there was no evidence at
trial from which the jury could find that the cost of replacing Watchword’s
videos and API exceeded the Policy’s deductible and that Erie as a matter of
law had a reasonable basis for denying Watchword’s claim. Erie was therefore
entitled to JNOV on both Watchword’s breach of contract claim and its bad
faith claim. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment against Erie and
remand this case to the trial court with instructions to enter JNOV in favor of
Erie. In light of our ruling that Erie is entitled to judgment in its favor on
Watchword’s bad faith claim, Watchword’s appeal challenging the amount of
the bad faith award is moot.
Judgment vacated. Case remanded with instructions to enter judgment
notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Erie Insurance Exchange. Jurisdiction
relinquished.
- 18 - J-A25032-23
DATE: 1/9/2024
- 19 -