The opinion of the court was delivered by: McLaughlin, J.
This case was originally filed on November 16, 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and arises out of the plaintiff's auto insurance policy with the defendant. The plaintiff alleges that she was not adequately paid under her policy's underinsured motorist provision after she submitted claims arising out of an accident in February, 2010. She brings claims against State Farm for bad faith, violation of Pennsylvania consumer protection law, and breach of contract. The defendants have moved to dismiss all claims except for that part of the breach of contract claim relating to amounts not paid up to the coverage limit of the insurance policy. The Court will grant the motion.
I. Allegations of the Complaint
The plaintiff was in an automobile accident in Northeast Philadelphia on February 24, 2010 and suffered injuries and losses as a result of the negligence of Brian Griffaton ("Griffaton"), whose car struck Angela Smith's ("Smith") as it was waiting at a stoplight. Compl. ¶¶ 4-8.
Smith's vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by State Farm, and Smith was a named insured under that policy, which provided for Underinsured Motorist Benefits Coverage ("UIM"). Her State Farm policy provided for a total amount of $45,000 in "stacked" coverage for UIM claims. After the accident, Smith submitted her claim to Griffaton's insurance carrier, which covered Griffaton in the amount of $15,000, which was less than the total amount of Smith's losses. On October 25, 2010, Smith informed State Farm of her claims under her policy's UIM provision. State Farm advised Smith that Kevin McDonnell ("McDonnell") would be assigned as Claim Representative to her UIM claim. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 12-19; Id. Exs. A-C.
On November 17, 2010, Griffaton's insurance carrier tendered $15,000, the full amount of his coverage under his policy, to Smith. Smith requested and received consent to settle with Griffaton from State Farm, which waived its subrogation rights on December 2, 2010. Smith's attorney provided McDonnell with medical records and bills supporting her UIM claim, noted Smith's first-party medical insurance had been exhausted and left unpaid bills of $26,474, and sought from State Farm the full $45,000 policy limit for UIM coverage on December 8, 2010. On January 3, 2011, her attorney again demanded $45,000 from State Farm. Compl. ¶¶ 25-29, 33; Id. Exs. E-G.
McDonnell requested that Smith provide a medical authorization on January 7, 2011, for the purpose of obtaining records from an earlier workers' compensation claim and "pre-loss family doctor records." The plaintiff provided an authorization on January 26. On March 22, 2011, the plaintiff sent McDonnell additional medical records from Abraham Medical Associates and again demanded the $45,000 policy limit, providing the defendant thirty days to reply. McDonnell offered $21,000 to settle the UIM claim on April 13, 2011. Compl. ¶¶ 34-38; Id. Exs. H-K.
Smith's attorney rejected the offer in a letter dated April 19, 2011. The letter detailed the medical records provided to State Farm, the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures Smith underwent, and the likely future course of her medical treatment. The letter noted that Smith had no medical insurance to pay $28,000 in outstanding bills and reiterated her demand for $45,000. The letter provided State Farm twenty days to respond. The following day, McDonnell responded that he was "willing to negotiate" the claim, but did not have authority to settle the claim for the full policy limit. McDonnell sent Smith, via her attorney, a payment of $21,000 stating that the remaining coverage would be reduced by that amount and that "[r]egardless of the final determination of damage, the amount of our initial offer will be your minimum recovery under the policy." Id. Exs. L-O.
The parties continued to communicate over the next several months. McDonnell reiterated his lack of authority to settle the claim for the full policy amount. The plaintiff received an independent medical exam from a neurosurgeon, Dr. Freese, whose report stated that Smith suffered two herniated discs from the accident. Dr. Freese's report was forwarded to McDonnell on August 19, 2011, along with a restated demand for the remaining $24,000 of coverage under the policy. McDonnell increased State Farm's offer to $32,225, inclusive of the initial $21,000 payment, on August 25. Id. Exs. P-R. The plaintiff then filed suit on November 16, 2011.
The complaint argues that State Farm has in bad faith refused to pay the full amount of the policy and that it lacks a reasonable basis for failing to offer the full $45,000 of coverage. Smith alleges that State Farm has acted pursuant to a scheme to delay and deny payment of benefits and done so recklessly, willfully, and with deliberate indifference. Smith brings a claim for bad faith under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371 for, among other reasons, failing to investigate her claim and consider evidence supplied in support of it; failing to timely respond to correspondence; making unreasonable offers of settlement; and misrepresenting facts and its evaluation of her claim.
She brings a claim for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") for, among other reasons: misrepresentations of the conditions of her policy; inducing Smith to purchase insurance on the belief that her "legitimate claims would be promptly evaluated and paid"; engaging in bad faith settlement practices; and misrepresenting the value of Smith's claim and amount of coverage available.
Finally, Smith brings a claim for breach of contract alleging State Farm's deliberate refusal to pay the full amount of benefits owed under the policy and for failure to engage in good faith and fair dealing. Smith seeks all statutory damages permitted as well as punitive damages under both Counts I and II; she seeks compensatory, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages in Count III.
The plaintiff's factual allegations fail to state a claim for bad faith or deceptive or fraudulent practices under the UTPCPL, and cannot state a claim for anything other than the remaining $24,000 under her coverage limit for breach of the insurance contract. Because the claim that remains is a claim for ...