Trial Judge Says Delay Damages Apply to UIM Jury Verdicts—but Only on Policy Limits
"We find delay damages on a UIM claim submitted to a jury for a verdict are recoverable," Monroe County Court of Common Pleas Judge David Williamson wrote in a March 4 opinion. "To do otherwise, would give insurance companies no incentive to settle UIM claims other than for less than the policy limits, even where, as here, there was potential for a verdict well in excess of policy limits."
March 19, 2020 at 04:00 PM
3 minute read
A Monroe County trial judge has rejected an insurer's argument that delay damages cannot be applied to a jury award on an underinsured motorist claim, but agreed with the company that they must be calculated on the policy limits rather than the full amount of the verdict.
In Kanyuck v. Hamilton, Monroe County Court of Common Pleas Judge David Williamson granted defendant Progressive Northern Insurance Co.'s post-trial motions to mold a $1.05 million UIM jury verdict to the policy limit of $325,000, but awarded the plaintiffs delay damages in the amount of about $19,382.
"We find delay damages on a UIM claim submitted to a jury for a verdict are recoverable," Williamson wrote in a March 4 opinion. "To do otherwise, would give insurance companies no incentive to settle UIM claims other than for less than the policy limits, even where, as here, there was potential for a verdict well in excess of policy limits."
Williamson said that even though the UIM claim was a contract action, it was one with recovery under tort principles.
"The plaintiff must still prove negligence, causation and damages at trial as to the tortfeasor," Williamson explained. "The damages recoverable at trial are the same that the plaintiff seeks from the tortfeasor. For this reason, Pa.R.C.P. 238 was clearly intended to apply to UM and UIM claims. Here, a demand was made for policy limits, Progressive offered substantially less, and following a trial, plaintiff was awarded a great deal more. As such, delay damages are due."
Plaintiff Stanley Kanyuck had argued that the delay damages should be calculated based on the jury verdict, which after a $250,000 tortfeasor credit, was reduced to $800,000.
But Williamson, pointing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in Marlette v. State Farm that delay damages in uninsured motorist cases are calculated to the UM policy limits, said UIM delay damages must be applied the same way.
"Plaintiff submitted a claim for delay damages from January 16, 2019, until date of verdict, which was 328 days at 6.5% on the policy limit of $325,000," Williamson said. "This calculation comes to $18,983.56. Plaintiff is also entitled to court costs of $398.35 for total delay damages of $19,381.91."
Williamson also rejected Kanyuck's argument that the verdict should not be molded to the policy limit, noting that Progressive clearly stated in its policy that the $325,000 policy limit was "'the most we will pay.'"
"That is a contractual cap," Williamson said.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, Thomas Foley III of the Foley Law Firm, said in an email, "On March 17, 2020, we filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and we expect to fully vindicate our client Stanley Kanyuck's right to the entirety of the $1,050,000 in damages determined to be due him by the unanimous jury in its verdict of December 10, 2019. We also expect to obtain additional delay damages as calculated in light of the jury's verdict."
Counsel for the defense, G. Christopher Parrish of Forry Ullman, could not be reached for comment.
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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
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