2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-4-2014

Allen Feingold v. Liberty Mutual Group

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1977

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Allen Feingold v. Liberty Mutual Group" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 367.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/367
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 13-1977

___________

ALLEN L. FEINGOLD;

BARBARA QUINN,

Executrix of the Estate of Theresa Thompson, Deceased

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP;

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.;

and LIBERTY GUARD AUTOMOBILE COMPANY

BARBARA QUINN,

Appellant

__________

No. 13-1978

___________

ALLEN L. FEINGOLD;

BARBARA QUINN,

Executrix of the Estate of Theresa Thompson, Deceased

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP;

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY;

and LIBERTY GUARD AUTOMOBILE COMPANY

ALLEN L. FEINGOLD,

Appellant
2

______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civ. Action No. 2-11-cv-05364)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 17, 2014

______________

Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

(Filed: April 4, 2014)

______________

OPINION

______________

GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Allen L. Feingold and Barbara Quinn brought an action against Liberty Mutual 

Group, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 

and Liberty Guard Auto Company (together “Liberty Mutual” or “Appellees”) for 

violation of Pennsylvania’s bad faith insurance statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8371. 

The District Court dismissed Feingold’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

dismissed Quinn’s claim pursuant to Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment. 

For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgments. 
3

I. Factual Background

Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the facts and 

procedural history, we recount only the essential facts. 

Theresa Thompson, a New Jersey resident, sustained serious personal injuries on 

June 24, 1997, as a result of an automobile accident in Philadelphia. Thompson made a 

claim for uninsured motorists coverage under a policy issued to Thompson by Liberty 

Mutual Fire Insurance Company. After Liberty Mutual refused to pay the benefits, 

Thompson hired Feingold as her attorney to bring a claim against Liberty Mutual in 

Pennsylvania state court. The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granted 

Thompson her motion to compel arbitration. On February 4, 2003, an arbitration panel 

found in favor of Thompson in the amount of $90,000. 

In a letter dated March 5, 2003, counsel for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company 

informed Feingold that it “rejects this award.” (App. 66a.) Thompson thereafter became 

seriously ill and died in 2006. Quinn was appointed as Executrix of Thompson’s estate. 

On June 3, 2011, Quinn filed a petition in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to 

confirm the arbitration award, which was granted. On December 8, 2011, Liberty Mutual 

Fire Insurance Co. paid the amount of the arbitration award, plus interest, in the total 

amount of $134,744.38. 

On August 25, 2011, Quinn and Feingold brought the present action alleging 

violation of Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute in the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2012, the District Court granted the 

motion to dismiss Feingold’s case for lack of standing, but allowed Quinn’s claims to 
4

proceed. On March 7, 2013, the District Court granted Liberty Mutual’s summary 

judgment motion regarding Quinn’s claims. This appeal followed. 

II. Jurisdiction 

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This Court has 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

III. Analysis 

A. Claim of Allen Feingold

Feingold claims that the District Court erred in dismissing his complaint for lack 

of standing. Feingold maintains that he has standing pursuant to a partial assignment 

agreement, which stipulated that Feingold is entitled to forty percent of Quinn’s claim 

against Liberty Mutual. (App. 16a.) On appeal, Feingold contends that there is no 

prohibition against the assignment of bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law. 

Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the substantive law of the state whose law 

governs the action. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). Our review of 

the District Court’s prediction and application of state law is plenary. Clark v. Modern 

Grp. Ltd., 9 F.3d 321, 327 (3d Cir. 1993). When ascertaining Pennsylvania law, the 

decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are the authoritative source. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, 713 (3d Cir. 2000). In the absence of a 

controlling decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, “we must predict how it would 
5

rule if faced with the issue.” Spence v. ESAB Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 212, 216 (3d Cir. 

2010). 

We need not repeat the District Court’s comprehensive and well-reasoned analysis 

that claims under the Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute are not assignable in this context. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that Pennsylvania law does not “permit 

the assignment of a cause of action to recover for personal injuries.” Hedlund Mfg. Co., 

Inc. v. Weiser, Stapler & Spivak, 539 A.2d 357, 359 (Pa. 1988). Contrary to his 

assertion, Feingold does not belong to the class of plaintiffs allowed to pursue a claim 

under § 8371. See Ash v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 877, 882 (Pa. 2007) (explaining that § 

8371 “only permits a narrow class of plaintiffs to pursue the bad faith claim against a 

narrow class of defendants”). Federal courts must apply substantive state law, as 

interpreted by the state courts, when applying that law in diversity. Federal courts cannot 

confer broader rights under a state’s law than that state court would itself recognize. 

Erie, 304 U.S. at 78; see also F. Andrew Hessick, Standing in Diversity, 65 Ala. L. Rev. 

417, 418 (2013) (“As has been clear since Erie . . . [f]ederal courts cannot . . . confer 

broader rights under state law than the state court [itself] recognize[s].”). 

Therefore, the District Court did not err in granting Liberty Mutual’s motion to 

dismiss for lack of standing. 

B. Claim of Barbara Quinn 

Quinn argues that Appellees violated Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute by engaging 

in a frivolous and unfounded refusal to pay her arbitration award. Central to her claim is 
6

the allegation that Appellees “placed their own interests ahead of those of their insured.” 

(Appellant Quinn’s Br. 10.)

This Court exercises plenary review over the District Court’s grant of summary 

judgment. See Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009). Summary judgment 

is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual 

dispute is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). For an issue to be “genuine,” a reasonable factfinder must be able to return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Id.

Under Pennsylvania law, an insured may bring a cause of action against an insurer 

who has acted in bad faith. See Polselli v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 747, 

750 (3d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, in opposing a summary judgment motion, the 

plaintiff’s burden of proof also rises. See id.

Here, Quinn’s claim rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. Even viewed in the 

light most favorable to her, the record does not come close to establishing bad faith. 

Fatal to her claim, challenging an arbitration award by itself does not indicate bad faith. 

As it has been emphasized by Pennsylvania courts, “bad faith must be proven by clear 

and convincing evidence and not merely insinuated.” Terletsky v. Prudential Prop. & 

Cas. Ins. Co., 649 A.2d 680, 688 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (internal citations omitted). While 

Pennsylvania requires that an insurer act with the utmost good faith toward its insured, an 

insurer is not required actively to submerge its own interest. See Cowden v. Aetna Cas. 

and Sur. Co., 134 A.2d 223, 228 (Pa. 1957) (“[T]he insurer must act with the utmost 
7

good faith toward the insured in disposing of claims against the latter. . . . But, that does 

not mean that the insurer is bound to submerge its own interest in order that the insured’s 

interest may be made paramount.”). 

Therefore, the District Court did not err in granting Liberty Mutual’s motion for 

summary judgment. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgments of the District Court.