J-A31019-14
This is a portion of the document referred to in previous post. (I bolded some interesting parts)
The degree of reprehensibility is the most important of the factors in
assessing the appropriateness of punitive damages. Here, it can fairly be
said, the trial court was appalled by Fidelity’s conduct.
The trial court found Fidelity was aware of both the delay it caused Davis and likely consequences
thereof. Final Memorandum and Order, 3/28/2014, at 11.
In December
2007, shortly after Davis filed the claim, Fidelity notified Davis it was
evaluating the claim and hoped to get back to him shortly. Memorandum
and Order, 8/15/2013, Finding of Fact 14, at 4.7
Approximately one year
later, Fidelity notified Davis that Norella may have a valid claim to the 1.86
acres. FF. 15, at 4. Six months later, 20 months after the claim had been
filed, Fidelity accepted Davis’ claim and again stated it would contact Davis
shortly regarding resolution of the claim. FF. 17, at 4. Fidelity waited
another three months to hire counsel. FF. 18, at 4. Fidelity investigated the
possibility of filing a quiet title action against Norella, but admitted there was
scant chance of success. FF. 23, at 5. Nonetheless, Fidelity threatened
Norella with filing the suit. CL. 22, at 14.
By August 2010, counsel for Fidelity was warning Fidelity of the
possibility of bad faith. FF. 24, at 5. Davis repeatedly made inquiry about
the status of his claim. CL. 24, at 14. Fidelity breached its own contract by
failing to act diligently, failing to pay the loss within 30 days of fixing the
____________________________________________
7
All citations to findings of facts (FF) or conclusions of law (CL) are taken
from the August 15, 2013 Memorandum and Order. Additionally, the trial
court did not issue omnibus findings of fact and conclusions of law, rather,
they were broken down into sub-categories, not always specifically labeled
as findings or conclusions. For ease we refer to all citations as either FF or
CL. Rather than clutter this memo with sub-category titles, we will cite to
the FF or CL number and the page on which it is found.
J-A31019-14
- 12 -
amount and failing to act in good faith and fair dealing. FF. 8, at 17. It failed
to follow its own internal claims handling procedures. FF. 13, at 18. Fidelity
violated 31 Pa. Code 146.6 and 146.5(c) regarding prompt investigations of
claims and communications with clients, as well as Pennsylvania Statutes 40
P.S. 1171.5(a)(10)(ii),(v) regarding communications with clients and failure
to affirm or deny claims promptly. FF. 15, 16, 17, at 18-19. Fidelity made
no offer to either Norella or Davis until after Davis filed the instant bad faith
claim. FF. 36, at 7. Indeed, it is difficult to find an area in which Fidelity
acted in conformance with accepted statutory, regulatory or internal
standards.
I would never use Fidelity National Title Insurance Company to protect my real estate. A claim was filed with Fidelity for me by their Title Officer for the loss of a mile long easement to 80 acres with views of the famous Napa Valley in California. Fidelity valued the loss at $0 by a Boise Idaho appraiser. After suing Fidelity I was forced to settle for a fraction of the loss. I question whether Fidelity National Title Insurance Company acted in Good Faith in the handling of my claim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment