Court: Deducting Premiums for Expired Policies Isn't Bad Faith—But It May Be Conversion
A federal district court in Pennsylvania has rejected a bad-faith claim against a life insurer brought by a married couple that alleged that it had continued to deduct premiums from their bank account after the policies had expired—although the court did permit the couple to proceed with their claim for conversion.
September 12, 2018 at 07:32 PM
4 minute read
This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
A federal district court in Pennsylvania has rejected a bad-faith claim against a life insurer brought by a married couple that alleged that it had continued to deduct premiums from their bank account after the policies had expired—although the court did permit the couple to proceed with their claim for conversion.
|The Case
Edward and Charlotte Yandrisovitz both purchased a $25,000 convertible term life insurance policy from Ohio State Life Insurance Co. in September and October 2001, with guaranteed premiums of $25.66 and $96.30, respectively. Both policies had a 15-year term and expired on Aug. 31, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2016, respectively.
According to the couple, after their policies expired in 2016, Ohio State Life Insurance (then known as Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Co.) renewed them for a year without notifying them or obtaining their consent. The Yandrisovitzes alleged that their insurance policies did not allow Ohio State to renew the policies and to continue deducting premiums from their bank account.
Ohio State increased the policy premiums from $25.66 to $268.79 and from $96.30 to $676.34 and continued deducting these amounts from the Yandrisovitzes' bank account.
The Yandrisovitzes also asserted that, a year later, in September 2017, Ohio State once again renewed the policies after the initial one-year renewal had expired. Again, the couple asserted, Ohio State did not notify them of the extension or obtain their consent to it.
The Yandrisovitzes said that, on Dec. 20, 2017, they contacted Ohio State and requested that it stop deducting funds from their bank account. However, according to the couple, Ohio State deducted premiums on Jan. 9, 2018, and in February 2018.
The Yandrisovitzes asserted that Ohio State deducted a total of $11,753.54 in premiums from their bank account after their policies had expired in 2016 and refused to reimburse them this amount.
The Yandrisovitzes sued Ohio State. Among other claims, they asserted claims for conversion and statutory bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S. Section 8371.
Ohio State moved to dismiss.
|The District Court's Decision
The district court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the statutory bad-faith claim, but refused to dismiss the Yandrisovitzes' conversion claim.
In its decision, the district court found that the Yandrisovitzes had stated a claim for conversion under Pennsylvania law. It reasoned that the Yandrisovitzes alleged that Ohio State had deprived them of funds by removing them from their bank account without their permission; that they did so after the policies had expired; and that the policies did not entitle Ohio State to do so.
By contrast, the district court found that the Yandrisovitzes had not stated a bad-faith claim because they had not alleged that they made a claim for benefits under their policy. To state a claim of bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371, the district court said, a plaintiff must allege that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis in denying the claim.
The district court observed that “bad faith” has been interpreted to include an insurer's conduct other than an unreasonable denial of benefits, but even in those situations an insured “must have made a claim under the policy to state a claim for bad faith.”
Because the Yandrisovitzes had not made any claim on their policies and did not allege that Ohio State failed to comply with its obligations under the policies, but only that Ohio State took more funds than the policies entitled them to take, the district court granted Ohio State's motion with respect to the Yandrisovitzes' bad-faith claim.
The case is Yandrisovitz v. Ohio State Life Insurance. Attorneys involved include, for the plaintiffs, Neil D. Ettinger of Ettinger & Associates in Whitehall; for the defendants, Andrew Hanan of The Hanan Law Firm in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Steven A. Meyerowitz is the director of FC&S Legal, the editor-in-chief of the Insurance Coverage Law Report, and the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc. As FC&S legal director, Meyerowitz, a member of the team that conceptualized FC&S Legal, provides daily analysis and commentary on the most significant insurance coverage law decisions from courts across the country and news regarding legislative and regulatory developments. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Meyerowitz was an attorney at a prominent Wall Street law firm before founding Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhiladelphia Eagles 0-2 in Attempts to Recover Insurance on COVID-Related Losses
4 minute readHigh Verdicts and Venue Rule Land Pa. Courts on Top of 'Judicial Hellhole' List
5 minute readJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250