(Id.) On causing extensive damage to the reside that was in it.
at 6 ¶ 30 31.) The renovations were still ongoing as of February 2019. at ¶ 28.) In summer and fall 2016, Plaintiffs began renovations to 30 Sweetwater Lane, which continued for approximately two years. at ¶ 27.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant never contacted them about a subsequent coverage increase over the initial increases confirmed over the phone call center employee. at ¶ 26.) Defendant subsequently arranged a property inspection of 30 Sweetwater Lane, to beĬonducted by Castle Inspection, one that was later cancelled and was never rescheduled. would provide additional coverage should a loss exceed the [three million ($3,000,000) dollar base coverage (Id. the Home Protector Coverage, coverage for which had paid an extra premium. at 5 ¶ 23.) According to Plaintiffs, the call center representative provided. The three million ($3,000,000) dollar base coverage without first conducting a property inspection. at 5 ¶ 23.) However, Defendant would not be able to raise theġ The Court hereinafter refers to coverage as the three million ($3,000,000) dollar base coverage. (Id.) During the alleged July 2016 phone conversation, center representative informed Plaintiffs that Defendant could increase base coverage amount to three million ($3,000,000) dollars in dwelling protection one million five hundred thousand ($1,500,000) dollars in contents or personal property protection and three hundred thousand ($300,000) dollars in other structures coverage. at 3 ¶¶ 11 provide extended cove the po coverage limits. at 3 ¶¶ 11 13.) In addition to the base coverage limits, Plaintiffs also includes a provision that for a covered loss.
Included two million five hundred thousand ($2,500,000) dollars in dwelling protection two hundred fifty thousand ($250,000) dollars for other structures protection and one million two hundred fifty thousand ($1,250,000) dollars for personal property protection. at 5 ¶ 22) At the time Plaintiffs contacted Defendantlimits (Id.) In or around July 2016, Plaintiffs allegedly representatives, of their intended renovations and requested a coverage increase total loss. at 2 ¶ 4.) The property is covere (Id.) In July 2016, Plaintiffs sought to increase their policy coverage due to renovations and anĪnticipated increase. Plaintiffs own a residential property at 30 Sweet Water Lane, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 11.) The Court draws the alleged facts from Luketich and Christine Luketich, husband and wife, who bring this lawsuit against their home insurer, Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company, under four theories of liability: breach of contract promissory estoppel, statutory bad faith, and violations of Case 2:20-cv-00315-MRH Document 22 Filed 09/24/20 of 20 Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
Based on consideration of the facts alleged, these are the three mainĮvents that give rise to the present action.
BACKGROUND A phone call, a multi-million-dollar home renovation, and a fire. Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint as to certain insurance coverage survive the Motion to Dismiss, and the balance of Counts I and II, and Counts III and IV, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE but with leave to amend. 14) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 11.) For the following reasons, Defendant (ECF No. 14) Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hornak, Chief United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES D.
0 kommentar(er)
