Portside Investors, L.P. v. Northern Insurance
41 A.3d 1
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Portside sued Northern for breach of contract and statutory bad faith after Pier 34 collapsed and coverage was denied.
- Jury found breach of contract in Portside’s favor; court later reduced some damages reflecting prior payments.
- Bad faith claim was tried non-jury; court held Northern’s conduct did not amount to statutory bad faith under § 8371.
- Portside valued the pier loss, seeking Actual Cash Value; Northern contended ACV was nearly zero based on its investigation.
- Northern relied on an EUO of indicted Asbell and claimed preservation/collection of appraisals; Portside demanded appraisal under the policy.
- Northern moved to bar Portside’s action under the policy’s two-year suit limitation; multiple post-trial motions and remand issues followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Northern acted in bad faith under § 8371 | Portside argues Northern delayed/denied claim in bad faith. | Northern contends its actions were reasonable investigations after indictments. | Affirmed in favor of Northern on bad faith claim. |
| Whether Mahoney’s ACV testimony was competent to support the verdict | Mahoney’s ACV method aligned with policy definition and relied on Castle’s replacement cost. | Mahoney lacked engineering credentials; ACV method unreliable. | Affirmed; Mahoney qualified and testified consistent with policy ACV. |
| Whether Portside is estopped by the two-year suit limitation | Delays were due to Northern’s bad faith, not Portside’s fault; estoppel applies. | Suit is barred by policy time bar; estoppel does not apply. | Upheld denial of estoppel; limitations apply with limited remand for interest recalculation. |
| Whether prejudgment interest should be recalculated | Interest should reflect actual delay by Northern, not the stay period. | Portside delays and stay affected interest differently; recalculation needed. | Remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest consistent with decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antz v. GAF Materials Corp., 719 A.2d 758 (Pa. Super. 1998) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; abuse of discretion avoided)
- Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, 991 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2010) (liberal standard for expert qualification)
- Blicha v. Jacks, 864 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 2004) (expert admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Reading Radio Inc. v. Fink, 833 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2003) (non-suit and judgment standards; burden on movant)
- Somerset Comm. Hosp. v. Allan B. Mitchell & Assocs., 454 Pa. Super. 188 (Pa. Super. 1996) (prejudgment interest and mitigation concepts in contract)