Summary judgment in favor of defendant insurer on breach of contract and bad faith claims: plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence to support claims after his disability benefits were terminated

The plaintiff had purchased a disability policy from the defendant. Later, the plaintiff was hospitalized after he suffered damage to his kidneys due to his diabetes. As a result, the plaintiff alleged that he could no longer work as an interstate truck driver, and he made a claim for disability benefits. The defendant initially paid the plaintiff benefits, but then requested additional information and documentation relative to the claim. The plaintiff failed to provide the requested information. It was also later learned that the plaintiff had renewed his commercial drivers license and was observed driving his personal vehicle on local roads and highways. As a result, the defendant terminated his benefits, and the plaintiff sued for breach of contract and bad faith. Considering the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that, aside from his own self-serving testimony, the plaintiff had failed to provide evidence supporting his position that he was disabled. Thus, summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant with respect to the breach of contract claim. With respect to the bad faith claim, the court held that the defendant had “reasonable grounds” to question the plaintiff’s disability claim after the plaintiff failed to provide the requested documentation and had been observed driving and going about his daily life with ease. Thus, summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant with respect to the bad faith claim as well.

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2015}

_{Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2015 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}