In its decision, the court states:
1. “Instead of alleging facts to show how [Progressive] failed to objectively and fairly evaluate her claim, she provides only ‘broad and conclusory statements.’”
2. “She must do more than characterize [Progressive’s] settlement offers as ‘lowball’ to show it unreasonably valued her claim.”
In an effort to elaborate on the elements that do rise to the level of bad faith, the court only alluded to what bad faith, is not, stating:
3. “’ [B]ad faith is not present merely because an insurer makes a low but reasonable estimate of an insured’s damages.’”
4. “It is ‘not unusual for there to be a disagreement between an insured and an insurance company over the value of an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim.”
The court also found that the allegations that the carrier failed to conduct a thorough or appropriate investigation of the plaintiff’s injuries, and that Progressive arbitrarily rejected her medical record evidence, are merely conclusory claims, stating:
