Nationwide argued that “’there is no coverage pursuant to a plain meaning of a policy and relevant exclusions and definitions, then the insurer could not have acted in bad faith in denying coverage.’” Thus, “Because [the insurer] is not entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, except with respect to the ALE claim, its motion for summary judgment on the bad faith claim, for the reasons set forth above, will also be denied.”
Although Nationwide did not rely on an inadequacy of bad faith facts plead in the complaint to support its request for summary judgment, Judge Flowers Conti inserted a footnote, stating “that the [insureds] pointed to circumstances from which bad faith might be inferred: (1) [the insurer] denied coverage for the November 6, 2017 incident without performing an inspection and [the insurer] investigator asked a leading question to set up the “seepage” exclusion; (2) there was a lengthy delay before [the insurer] provided any payment; (3) [the insurer’s] initial payment omitted the overhead and profit line item (which represented about 20% of the claim); and (4) [the insurer] was not proactive in arranging an emergency service vendor or other mitigation assistance.”
