Dog bite plaintiff pursues bad faith claim against insurer following $3M verdict

“For a verdict to be 10 times the policy limits, that is just completely unacceptable,” said Pansini Law Group managing partner Michael Pansini.

Attorneys for plaintiff Lynda Boccella claim the insurer should be on the hook for the full award since they declined to offer the defendant’s $300,000 policy limit to resolve the dispute. (Credit: Beate Wolter/Shutterstock.com)

Fresh off of winning a $3 million verdict Thursday, the plaintiff in a dog bite suit alleged the defendant’s insurer acted in bad faith.

Attorneys for plaintiff Lynda Boccella claim the insurer should be on the hook for the full award since they declined to offer the defendant’s $300,000 policy limit to resolve the dispute.

“For a verdict to be 10 times the policy limits, that is just completely unacceptable,” said Pansini Law Group managing partner Michael Pansini, who represented Boccella alongside partner Steven Mezrow and senior attorney David Pizzica. “That is horrible claims handling.”

Goldberg, Miller & Rubin partner Lori Miller, who represented the defendant, Imani Hicham, did not respond to requests for comment.

Pansini said he informed defense counsel that he felt strongly the trial would end in an excessive verdict. Still, the defense failed to offer to settle for the full policy limit until just before closing arguments. At that point, Pansini said, it was too late.

Pansini claimed Stillwater Insurance Co.’s refusal to tender the policy limit despite his warning was evidence of bad faith.

“They were trying to save money for themselves, not considering the fact that their insured was exposed,” he said.

According to Mezrow, the case marks the firm’s sixth consecutive jury trial to result in a large verdict. Mezrow said an insurer pushing a case to trial is “music to our ears,” bringing the opportunity to pursue post-verdict interest and delay damages.

“We make more money on the back end than we do if we settle the case,” he said.

Mezrow said jurors tend to be skeptical of whether defendants have a solid defense or are attempting to wear down plaintiffs through litigation.

The jury in Boccella’s case found Hicham negligent and returned $3 million in damages to Boccella, though it declined to award her husband any damages for loss of consortium.

Judge Angelo Foglietta of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas presided over the case, captioned Boccella v. Hicham.

According to the pretrial documents, Boccella, then 73, was attacked in July 2020 by Hicham’s two pit bulls while taking her dog, a cavachon, for a walk. Her dog died from the altercation, and she sustained injuries to her right arm and shoulder, which she said caused her lasting pain and movement issues.

Boccella claimed Hicham failed to properly restrain the dogs on his property and admitted that the incident was his fault.

In his pretrial memo, however, Hicham said he had made a reasonable effort to confine his dogs, which he claimed had no history of aggression. Hicham’s position was that “under Pennsylvania law, a dog owner is not liable for negligence for a dog bite unless the owner knew or had reason to know the dog’s vicious propensities.”

Related: