Allen v. Protective Ins. Co., 2024 LEXIS 174169 (U.S. Dist. of East Pa., September 26, 2024)(Leeson, Jr., J.)
Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.
Lyle Allen has received significant medical treatment following a motor vehicle collision in December of 2022. Protective Insurance Company has refused to pay Allen’s medical bills, as a consequence he has brought the instant suit for breach of contract and bad faith.
Allen alleges that he entered into a contract with Protective by purchasing the referenced insurance policy. He further alleges that the insurance policy entitles him to certain first-party medical and temporary total disability benefits which have gone unpaid. At this stage of the litigation, this is sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract.
Thus, with regard to Count I, the Motion to Dismiss is overruled and Allen’s bad faith claim fails.
The Court finds that the MVFRL does not apply to the underlying occupational accident insurance contract. It now proceeds to the next question: disregarding references to the MVFRL, does the Complaint nevertheless state a claim for breach of contract and/or bad faith?
Notwithstanding, the Court finds that Allen has stated a claim for breach of contract. A successful breach of contract claim requires that a plaintiff establish three things: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) a breach of duty imposed by the contract; and (3) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. See Gorski v. Smith, 2002 PA Super 334, 812 A.2d 683, 692 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). Disregarding the averments premised on the MVFRL.
Notwithstanding Allen’s references to the MVFRL, he has adequately stated a claim for breach of contract. However, absent reference to the MVFRL, his claim for bad faith fails because it avers only bare legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
