Scribd
Upload
6 views2 pages

Response

The Plaintiff, Matthew W. Dubyk, disputes the Defendant, Progressive Insurance Company's claims regarding the investigation of a fire damage claim, asserting that the Defendant failed to conduct a proper inspection and misrepresented policy limits. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's actions create a triable issue of fact regarding bad faith and that unreasonable burdens were imposed on him during the claims process. Consequently, the Plaintiff requests that the Motion for Summary Judgment be denied due to these disputes.

Uploaded by

Maureen Olvis
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views2 pages

Response

The Plaintiff, Matthew W. Dubyk, disputes the Defendant, Progressive Insurance Company's claims regarding the investigation of a fire damage claim, asserting that the Defendant failed to conduct a proper inspection and misrepresented policy limits. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's actions create a triable issue of fact regarding bad faith and that unreasonable burdens were imposed on him during the claims process. Consequently, the Plaintiff requests that the Motion for Summary Judgment be denied due to these disputes.

Uploaded by

Maureen Olvis
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

MATTHEW W. DUBYK,

Plaintiff

v.

PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

I. Counter-Statement of Disputed Material Facts

While Defendant claims certain facts are "undisputed," Plaintiff asserts the following remains in
dispute:

1. Defendant claims it requested a contents sheet, yet it is disputed that Defendant fulfilled
its duty to investigate. Defendant failed to send an adjuster or representative to the
property to personally inspect the fire damage.
2. It is disputed that Defendant acted in good faith regarding policy communication.
Defendant initially misrepresented the applicable policy limit as $5,000, when the policy
actually provides $10,000 for "Blanket Contractors Tools and Equipment" and additional
"Scheduled" limits.
3. While Defendant cites various emails sent regarding a contents sheet, it is disputed
whether these requests were reasonable. The defendant imposed an arbitrary 30-day
deadline to document a complex fire loss involving hundreds of items, which was a bad
faith tactic to close the claim prematurely.

II. Legal Argument in Opposition

Defendant is not entitled to Summary Judgment because their conduct creates a "triable issue of
fact" regarding Bad Faith (42 Pa.C.S. § 8371).

By failing to properly investigate and by imposing "unreasonable burdens" on the Plaintiff,


Progressive breached the insuring agreement.

The shift from a verbal $5,000 limit to a $10,000 limit—only after the claim was challenged—
shows a lack of a reasonable basis for their initial valuation.

Discovery is still "In Process." Plaintiff has identified that experts, such as cleaning and
inspection investigators, have provided estimates (e.g., $20,000) that far exceed what Progressive
has offered.

III. Conclusion

Because there are clear disputes regarding whether Progressive's investigation was "reasonable"
and whether their communications were "misleading," the Motion for Summary Judgment must
be DENIED.

Matthew W. Dubyk
Dated: __________

You might also like