United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
BARCLAY SURRICK, J.
before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the
Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) For the following reasons,
Plaintiffs' Motion will be granted.
Michael Mitchell and Molly Conlon purchased a Homeowners
Insurance Policy from Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company. This action arises as a result of
Defendant's partial denial of Plaintiffs' claims
under the Policy.
Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs purchased a
Homeowners Insurance Policy from Defendant on or before
January 2016. (Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 6.) On January
23, 2016, Plaintiffs' property suffered damage due to a
snow storm. (Id. ¶ 6.) The interior, exterior,
and roof of the main residence were damaged as a result of
the ice and snow. (Id.) The roof of the detached
garage was also severely damaged. (Id.)
Plaintiffs' policy with Defendant covered storm, ice, and
snow damage. (Id. ¶ 7.)
determined that the interior damage to the main residence
totaled $7, 717.83. (Id. ¶ 8.) After
subtracting the deductible and depreciation, Defendant
provided Plaintiffs with a payment in the amount of $5,
801.77. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
failed to provide adequate payment for the interior damage.
(Id. ¶ 9.) The exterior damage totaled $54,
180.76. (Id.) Defendant failed to provide any
payment for the exterior damage, which included the roof of
the main residence, the exterior fascia and stucco, and the
roof of the detached garage. (Id.)
allege that Defendant did not contact Plaintiff to inspect
the damaged property in a timely manner. (Pls.' Mot., Ex.
A, “SAC” ¶ 21.) Plaintiffs allege that they
provided the following documents to Defendant:
“photographs and statements regarding the damage to the
detached garage;” an expert report detailing the
condition of the garage prior to the storm; and an expert
report, which determined that the snow storm caused the
damage to the exterior property. (Id. ¶ 23.)
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant did not properly investigate
the claim, and that Defendant did not provide a good faith
reason for denying the claim. (Id. ¶ 15.)
Rather, Defendant “simply refused coverage based upon
its inability to inspect dangerous and inconvenient debris
that was removed from the property, ” despite the
“overwhelming evidence” that Plaintiffs provided
to Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 15, 24.)
January 5, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. (ECF No.
1.) On February 16, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of
Removal. (Id.) On February 23, 2017, Defendant filed
a Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Complaint. (ECF No. 4.)
On March 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
rendering Defendant's Motion moot. (ECF No. 6.)
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts two claims against
Defendant: breach of contract (Count I); and violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-2(4)(xxi)
(“UTPCPL”) (Count II).
April 26, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Amend
the Amended Complaint. (Pls.' Mot., ECF No. 14.)
Plaintiffs seek to add a bad faith claim to the Amended
Complaint. On May 5, 2017, Defendant filed a Response in
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion. (Def.'s Resp., ECF
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) requires that leave to amend
the pleadings be granted freely “when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2); see also Long v.
Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004). However,
“[t]he policy favoring liberal amendment of pleadings
is not . . . unbounded.” Dole v. Arco Chem.
Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990). A district court
may deny leave to amend a complaint where “it is
apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has
demonstrated undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motives, (2)
the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would
prejudice the other party.” Lake v. Arnold,
232 F.3d 360, 373 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Foman v.
Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).