Bodnar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Stephen Bodnar |
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company |
3:2012cv01337 |
July 10, 2012 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Scranton Office |
Luzerne |
Robert D. Mariani |
Insurance |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 194 ORDER upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 186), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT such Motion is DENIED.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/3/15. (jfg) |
Filing 185 ORDER upon consideration of Defendant's Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 114; 160), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED. 2. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of the Defendant. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 9/15/15. (jfg) |
Filing 124 ORDER THAT such Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, to wit:1. The following passages are STRICKEN from the Court's October 15 Opinion (Doc. 60 at 4-5): Second, even if these "facts" were indeed "adjudicative facts," for the Court to judicially notice them would not materially advance the resolution of the underlying issues, considering that the record is bereft of evidence that the ambiguities cited in any way motivated Defendant's conduct. To establish ba d faith under [42 Pa. C.S.A. §] 8371, [the Pennsylvania Superior] Court has utilized a two-part test, both elements of which must be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying coverage; an d (2) the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.Adamski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 738 A.2d 1033, 1036 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (citing Terletsky v. Prudential Prop. &Cas. Co., 649 A.2d 680 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)).Accordingly, even assuming that ambiguity in the law would create a reasonable basis for withholding coverage from Bodnar, Defendant would have to show that this ambiguity actually influenced its decision. In other words, if Defendant actually acted unreasonably, it cannot escape bad-faith liability just because an ambiguity exists in a general sense which caused a lack of clarity or predictability in the applicable law. A showing that the Defendant considered the law ambiguous and that such ambiguity motiva ted or at least substantially influenced the decisions Defendant made in this case regarding whether to afford or deny coverage, and after initially denying coverage, whether to adhere to this decision and to support it through continued declaratory judgment litigation for the period prior to the settlement of the claim of Danielle Berry on behalf of the Estate of James Berry, are facts which must be determined. This Court cannot resolve these issues in whole or in part through a grant of judici al notice. This would be true even if the facts that Defendant seeks to have judicially noticed were actually "adjudicative facts", which, as discussed above, they are not. 2. Defendant's Motion is DENIED to the extent that it requests reconsideration of the issue of burdens of proof in acivil case. 3. To the extent not already rendered moot by the above rulings, Defendant's request for an interlocutory appeal is DENIED. 4.All other portions of the Court's October 15 Opinion not explicitly referenced herein, including its ultimate holding denying the Motion for Judicial Notice, REMAIN IN EFFECT. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 7/11/14. (jfg) |
Filing 60 MEMORANDUM and OPINION -This Court cannot resolve these issues in whole or in part through a grant of judicial notice. This would be true even if the facts that Defendant seeks to have judicially noticed were actually "adjudicative facts", which, as discussed above, they are not.Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion. A separate Order follows. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 10/15/13. (jfg) |
Filing 33 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION - For these reasons, Nationwide's Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied. In so ruling, Iexpress no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, any attempt at the determination of which must be deferred, at least until the conclusion of discovery. A separate Order follows.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 5/16/13. (jfg) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Bodnar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Stephen Bodnar | |
Represented By: | Franklin E. Kepner, Jr. |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company | |
Represented By: | Charles E. Haddick, Jr. |
Represented By: | Bryon R. Kaster |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.