Opinion ID: 2668900
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim of Barbara Quinn

Text: 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 5 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 6 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.