Disputes over the value of a UIM claim between an insured and an insurer are not valid grounds for bad faith claims.

On June 5, 2005, the appellant was involved in an automobile accident which he claimed to have sustained injuries. At the time of the accident, he was insured under a policy of insurance with Appellee for $100,000. One year after the accident occurred, the appellant notified the insurer of his intent to pursue a UIM claim under the policy. He then sought permission from the insurer to settle the underlying tort action against the other driver involved in the accident to which the appellee consented. The appellee then sought documentation pertaining to the appellant's alleged injuries. None of the documentation was promptly provided to the insurer and all of the documentation was not received until almost six months after it was requested. The appellant then had a medical examination performed on his knee, the conclusions of which revealed that he could suffer permanent impairment. An independent medical examination performed at the request of the insurer, which was later performed, revealed that all of the injuries that the appellant sustained as a result of the automobile accident had fully resolved. The case proceeded to arbitration to which the appellant was awarded an amount that was 25 percent less than his demand. The appellant then filed suit against the insurer. After preliminary objections were partially granted, the only count that remained against the insurer was the bad faith cause of action. The court thereafter granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer. The court ruled that the case was handled properly and professionally by the appellee in that it promptly sought documentation pertaining to the appellant's injuries and scheduled a timely independent medical examination. The court ruled that the facts of the matter involved nothing more than a normal dispute between an insured and insurer over the value of a UIM claim and that summary judgment in favor of the insurer was appropriate.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010