United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
F. KENNBY, J.
Tony Tung Nguyen, a prisoner currently incarcerated at the
State Correctional Institute in Somerset, filed pro
se a Second Amended Complaint against Allstate Vehicle
and Property Insurance Company ("Allstate") based on
allegations that Allstate acted in bad faith by failing to
provide insurance coverage for a collapsed carport and
related damage. ECF No. 15. Allstate filed a Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim contending, among other
things, the following: 1) Plaintiffs claim for breach of
contract should be dismissed pursuant to the suit limitation
provision in the insurance policy; 2) Plaintiffs claim for
bad faith should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not
alleged facts sufficient to warrant a finding of bad faith
against Allstate; 3) Plaintiffs claim for negligence should
be dismissed based on the gist of the action doctrine; and 4)
Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment should be dismissed
because there is a written contract between the parties. ECF
No. 23. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's
motion. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 23-1) will be granted in part and denied in
alleges that in 2015 he purchased a homeowner's insurance
policy from Allstate on property he owned in Philadelphia.
ECF No. 15 at ¶ 9. According to the Second Amended
Complaint, an Allstate agent represented to Plaintiff in late
2015 or early 2016 that Plaintiff would be covered by the
policy if he built a carport extending from his house.
Id. at ¶¶ 12-13. Plaintiff began building
the carport in late 2016, but he was not able to complete the
project because he had been sentenced to house arrest.
Id. at ¶ 14. On March 14 or 15 of 2017, a
snowstorm damaged Plaintiffs home and caused the carport to
collapse. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.
alleges that Defendant, under the insurance policy, "has
a duty under their contract of insurance as well as under
Pennsylvania law to provide coverage for the loss that took
place and timely make payments for the damages, and repairs
for dwelling, and personal property for the Plaintiff."
Id. at ¶ 59. Although Plaintiff alleges at one
point in the Second Amended Complaint that "Defendant
ha[s] been provided with proof of loss, pictures of loss,
depreciation values sheet, and age of damages personal
property," Plaintiff later alleges that he was
"never able to send pictures of damages or loss to
Defendant" because Defendant's agent did not respond
to him, which constitutes "bad faith." Id.
at ¶¶ 60, 70-71. Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant refused to pay Plaintiffs claims so that he could
"repair [his] home and secure the property."
Id. at ¶ 68.
on those allegations, Plaintiff filed suit on November 19,
2018, appearing to allege claims under state law for breach
of contract, bad faith, professional negligence, and unjust
enrichment. Id. at pg. 1. Notably, the Second
Amended Complaint does not explicitly address the purported
counts for breach of contract and professional negligence.
Id. Rather, Plaintiff only explicitly sets forth its
counts for bad faith and unjust enrichment. Id.
his claim for bad faith, Plaintiff alleges that Allstate was
informed of the demands for payments for his claims and
Allstate "unreasonably refused to make payments or
responses to Plaintiff." Id. at ¶ 58.
Further, Plaintiff alleges that Allstate "made Plaintiff
look bad by making Plaintiff file  six different claims for
[the] one incident," id. at ¶ 62; that
Allstate's agent terminated Plaintiffs insurance policy
because of those multiple filed claims, id. at
¶ 63; that Allstate's agent provided Plaintiff with
false information as to what his insurance policy would
cover, id. at ¶ 66; and that Allstate
"never responded or gave Plaintiff any information to
who Plaintiff can write to so Plaintiff can get more
information on his claim and appeal," id. at
his claim for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff alleges that
Allstate benefited from Plaintiffs payment for his insurance
policy "and never made any effort to pay for any damages
covered in [the contract]." Id. at ¶ 78.
insurance policy at issue here contains a suit limitation
clause, which states as follows:
may bring an action against us in any way related to the
existence or amount of coverage, or the amount of loss for
which coverage is sought, under a coverage to which
Section I Conditions applies, unless:
a) there has been full compliance with all policy terms; and
b) the action is commenced within one year after the
inception of ...