Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania insurance law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendant on beach of contract and Statutory Bad Faith theories.


Dubbs Dred avers it owns a golf course located within Butler County, Pennsylvania and it maintains an insurance policy through Auto-Owners. (ECF No. 10 at ¶ 7). On October 21, 2021, Dubbs Dred alleges a severe windstorm, including a tornado, caused the following damages:

damage to the roof of the Club House, including but not limited to the attached silo storage structure; damage to the Tea House and pavilion located on the Property; damage to the bridges, golf cart paths, and golf carts on the Property; loss of income; substantial debris; and damage to the golf course grounds, including but not limited to the greens, tees, and fairways.

Id. at ¶¶ 8, 15. The following day, Dubbs Dredd notified Auto-Owners, who sent a representative a few days later to inspect the damage. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.

During Auto-Owners's inspection, Dubbs Dred alleges the representative did not inspect the roof, other than from the ground, and concluded: (1) that it should simply be “patched up,” (2) there was no need to match the green shingles, saying “put anything up there, ‘AO' is not responsible to match shingles” and (3) that the Plaintiffs should “wait until it leaks” to report it. Id. at ¶ 10. Dubbs Dred avers that, contrary to Auto-Owners's preliminary estimates of damage to the roof, nearly every shingle tab was broken, and, during the first rainfall following the October 21, 2021, the roof leaked. Id. Thereafter, Dubbs Dred alleges it obtained six quotes for the damaged Club House roof, and the quoting contractors would not guarantee the roof unless it was fully replaced due the damaged shingle tabs dislodged from the tornado. Id. at ¶ 11. AutoOwners allegedly offered One Thousand and Three Hundred dollars ($1,300) to repair the Club House Roof. Id. Eventually, Dubbs Dred expended Sixty-Two Thousand dollars ($62,000.00) for repairs to the Clubhouse Roof. Id.

With regard to tree damages, Dubbs Dred alleges that Auto-Owners waited five months to send an “arborist” to assess the damage to 81 trees on the property. Id. at ¶ 12. AutoOwners alleges said “arborist” lacked the requisite credentials. Id. Dubbs Dred avers that AutoOwners rejected offers to have a local “arborist” review the property to expedite the assessment. Id. Auto-Owners allegedly paid Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) on the claim, but
Dubbs Dred alleges that it accrued Two Hundred and Two Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($202,500.00) in tree damage. Id.

For Auto-Owners alleged failure to refuse to compensate Dubbs Dred, the Amended Complaint asserts claims for Breach of Contract and Bad Faith. Auto-Owners moves to dismiss the Bad Faith claim.

Outcome: Motion to dismiss denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: