Buyer’s Remorse: Motion to Amend to Claim to Assert Bad Faith After Accepting Settlement Fails

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acceptance-offer-judgment-resolves-litigation-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4050 posts.

Plaintiffs Eric Monzo and Dana Spring Monzo (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”) sought damages against their homeowners’ insurance carrier, Defendant Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter “Defendant”). In Eric Monzo And Dana Spring Monzo v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co., C. A. No. K18C-11-003 NEP, Superior Court of Delaware (January 27, 2022) the Delaware court dealt with a claim of buyer’s remorse.

FACTS

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, which the Court granted in full on March 18, 2020. On March 11, 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed this Court’s decision in part, but reversed as to the Option R coverage provision in Plaintiffs’ policy.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Complaint seeking to add back the bad faith claim, with new allegations stemming from limited discovery. Plaintiffs filed an acceptance of the Offer with the Court, with Plaintiffs’ direction to enter judgment, on June 22, 2021. The Offer was entered by the Clerk, and the amount was paid by Defendant and accepted by Plaintiffs, as indicated in Plaintiffs’ “Satisfaction of Judgment on Count I of the Complaint” filed with the Court on July 26, 2021.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of Superior Court Civil Rule 68 (hereinafter “Rule 68”) is to encourage settlement and avoid litigation. Rule 68 prompts both parties to balance and evaluate the risks and costs of litigation against the likelihood of success at trial on the merits.

The Court’s decision on the Motion to Amend resolves the case, since the claims that Plaintiffs contend were not included in the Offer’s scope-the bad faith claims- cannot be brought back into the case, and thus the judgment that has been entered includes all of Plaintiff’s claims in this case.

 More to the point, Mr. Papa represented to Plaintiffs that coverage “may be afforded”-not that it would be.

ZALMA OPINION

People who sue their insurance company think they are guaranteed a fortune in damages. When they don’t profit from the suit they get upset and litigate and appeal. This case is a perfect example: they accepted a settlement and then tried for more by attempting to amend their suit by seeking to reinstate a bad faith claim that the plaintiff had withdrawn in hopes of reaching a settlement. It worked, they got a settlement offer that they accepted and then tried to renege on the deal. The try failed.

© 2022 – Barry Zalma

Subscribe to “Zalma on Insurance” at https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe and “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.