The opinion of the court was delivered by: Padova, J.
Plaintiff Corrine Taylor filed the instant action, alleging breach of contract and bad faith arising out of an underinsured motorist claim that she filed with her insurer, Defendant Geico General Insurance Company ("Geico").*fn1 Presently before the Court is Geico's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. For the following reasons, we grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.
The facts as set forth in the Complaint are as follows. On or about July 13, 2007, Ms. Taylor was driving her own car eastbound on Bid Oak Road at or near its intersection with Pine Grove Road in Lower Makefield Township, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 6.) As she was making a right turn onto Pine Grove Road, Christopher Monteiro, who was driving southbound on Pine Grove Road, failed to stop for a red light and hit her vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) As a result of the collision, Taylor suffered a number of injuries, some or all of which may be permanent. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) Taylor's medical records indicate that she was treated immediately after the accident at Helene Fuld Hospital, where she stayed overnight and was discharged the following day. (Id. ¶ 31.) She also sought and received treatment from a rehabilitation physician and a neurologist. (Id. ¶ 32.)
At the time of the collision, Monteiro carried an automobile insurance policy that capped bodily injury liability protection at $50,000, which was insufficient to compensate Taylor for the injuries she sustained as a result of the accident. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) Taylor carried an insurance policy with Geico that provided $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) In October 2009, Taylor agreed to settle with Monteiro's insurance carrier for a payment of $44,500. (Id. ¶ 34.) Geico consented to the third-party settlement on or about November 16, 2009. (Id. ¶ 35.) On or about October 27, 2009, Taylor's counsel provided medical reports and records to Geico and advised Geico that Taylor intended to pursue an underinsured motorist claim. (Id. ¶¶ 27-28.) That same month, Taylor demanded $100,000 under her underinsured motorist coverage, and has continued to demand payment of the coverage ever since. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30.) On November 16, 2009, Geico made an initial offer of settlement in the amount of $15,000, which Taylor rejected. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37.) Geico has not made any subsequent settlement offers.*fn2 (Id. ¶ 38.)
The Complaint asserts causes of action against Geico for breach of the insurance policy and bad faith pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8371. Taylor seeks compensatory and punitive damages, litigation costs, and attorney's fees. On March 10, 2010, Geico filed its Motion to Dismiss.
When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we look primarily at the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). We take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002)). Legal conclusions receive no deference, and the court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (cited with approval in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
A plaintiff's pleading obligation is to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which gives the defendant "'fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). The "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In the end, we will grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the factual allegations in the complaint are not sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, at 235-36 (3d ed. 2004)). A complaint that offers "only 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,'" or that merely "allege[s] the plaintiff's entitlement to relief," is insufficient. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Rather, a complaint must show the plaintiff's entitlement to relief with its facts. Id. at 211 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234-35 (3d Cir. 2008)).
Geico argues that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it fails to set forth valid causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and bad faith. Geico also argues that the Complaint fails to establish a sufficient basis for punitive damages. In the alternative, Geico argues that Taylor has failed to plead with specificity the actions forming the basis of her claims and requests that the Court direct her to file a more specific pleading.*fn3
A. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
The Complaint alleges in the context of its breach of contract and bad faith claims that Geico owed Taylor a fiduciary duty, but it never explicitly asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. (See Compl. ¶¶ 44, 48.) Geico moves to dismiss the Complaint insofar as it asserts breach of fiduciary duty as a separate claim. Taylor responds that she has, in fact, asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with her claims for breach of contract and bad faith. Accordingly, we will read the Complaint as asserting a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Geico argues that the Complaint fails to set forth a valid cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty because, according to Geico, an insurer only owes its insured a duty of good faith and fair dealing, not a fiduciary duty. "The Pennsylvania Supreme Court treats the breach of the contractual duty of good faith and breach of fiduciary duty synonymously in the context of insurance cases." Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., 872 F. Supp. 1403, 1409 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (citing Gedeon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 188 A.2d 320, 322 (Pa. 1963)). Pennsylvania law does not permit common law tort actions for breach of fiduciary duty in the context of insurance cases. Id.; see also Wood v. Allstate Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 96-4574, 1996 WL 637832, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 1996) (striking an insured plaintiff's cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and ruling that it was subsumed by the plaintiff's bad faith claim and therefore ...