East News
Viewing comments for:
Insurer Reported to Pay $20 Million to Settle Bad Faith Claim in Pa.
East News • July 2, 2007
An insurer has agreed to pay $20 million in what is believed to be the state's richest settlement of a bad faith claim.
According to the plaintiff's attorney, Robert Mongeluzzi of Saltz Mongeluzzi ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: RE: RE: bad faith | We finally got a little relief | Jul 11, 2007, 2:10 pm |
| RE: Get the facts before you comment | wudchuck | Jul 10, 2007, 2:02 pm |
| Get the facts before you comment | Jul 10, 2007, 12:05 pm |
|
| RE: RE: bad faith | David Williams | Jul 9, 2007, 11:18 pm |
| RE: bad faith | wudchuck | Jul 9, 2007, 11:14 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: bad faith | farful mctavish | Jul 9, 2007, 9:49 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: bad faith | David Williams | Jul 9, 2007, 9:39 pm |
| RE: RE: bad faith | farful mctavish | Jul 9, 2007, 9:30 pm |
| RE: RE: bad faith | tim | Jul 9, 2007, 9:24 pm |
| RE: bad faith | wudchuck | Jul 9, 2007, 8:26 pm |
| RE: RE: bad faith | adjuster | Jul 9, 2007, 7:56 pm |
| RE: bad faith | wudchuck | Jul 9, 2007, 7:06 pm |
| bad faith | clm mgr | Jul 9, 2007, 12:36 pm |
| RE: Could it be??? | No Longer "Big Insurance" | Jul 9, 2007, 12:35 pm |
| Could it be??? | Stowers? | Jul 9, 2007, 11:40 am |
| Host Liquor or Liquor Liab Form | ad | Jul 9, 2007, 11:34 am |
| RE: Some off you are confused | wudchuck | Jul 6, 2007, 6:55 am |
| RE: Some off you are confused - Righ On | of all people | Jul 5, 2007, 6:24 pm |
| Some off you are confused. | Jeff | Jul 5, 2007, 3:25 pm |
| reading?! | wudchuck | Jul 4, 2007, 7:12 am |
| RE: RE: Am I reading this right? | tim | Jul 4, 2007, 6:12 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: LOWBALL? | Farful McTavish | Jul 3, 2007, 6:24 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: LOWBALL? | wudchuck | Jul 3, 2007, 4:48 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: homework / Happy 4 | Mike | Jul 3, 2007, 4:07 pm |
| RE: RE: homework / Happy 4 | Rubeus Hagrid | Jul 3, 2007, 2:15 pm |
| RE: homework / Happy 4 | Huh? | Jul 3, 2007, 1:23 pm |
| homework / Happy 4 | Jul 3, 2007, 12:00 pm |
|
| RE: LOWBALL? | Jul 3, 2007, 11:45 am |
|
| RE: RE: LOWBALL? | steven | Jul 3, 2007, 8:37 am |
| RE: LOWBALL? | Farful McTavish | Jul 2, 2007, 10:31 pm |
| LOWBALL? | wudchuck | Jul 2, 2007, 10:19 pm |
| RE: RE: bad | ; | Jul 2, 2007, 6:57 pm |
| RE: RE: bad faith | FAITH IN THAT. | Jul 2, 2007, 6:55 pm |
| RE: RE: Am I reading this right? | steven | Jul 2, 2007, 3:11 pm |
| RE: bad faith | Of All People | Jul 2, 2007, 3:10 pm |
| RE: Am I reading this right? | NYUND | Jul 2, 2007, 2:58 pm |
| RE: Am I reading this right? | Ken | Jul 2, 2007, 2:57 pm |
| Am I reading this right? | Confused | Jul 2, 2007, 2:34 pm |
| bad faith | Farful McTavish | Jul 2, 2007, 2:04 pm |
| Back to article | ||
Subject: RE: RE: RE: LOWBALL?
?? did the insurance company initially offer the bar owner more coverage prior to purchasing the policy? if so, why is it considered bad faith? the insurance company was going to pay the $1 mil. that wud have meant the bar owner had to come up w/the rest -- so that is not in bad faith. afterall, he knew (especially in most states), the bar can be responsible for serving a drunk whom is willing to drive. makes matter worse, it was him, the owner who was drinking from his own bar.