Bruce founded the firm's Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Practice Group and is the senior shareholder in that department. He is one of the most respected litigators in Pennsylvania in this discipline. Bruce's practice focuses on the representation of insurance companies directly, both in insurance coverage consultations and in litigation. He also represents the insurers' interests in underlying liability matters with threatened or existing excess exposures, as well as claims brought under the Pennsylvania bad faith statute. In addition to his insurance matters, Bruce continues to handle select appellate cases in Pennsylvania state and federal appellate courts.
In addition to trying and supervising major bad faith and coverage cases statewide, Bruce also obtained the appellate reversal of the first reported punitive damage award against an insurer under the Pennsylvania bad faith statute. More recently, the Superior Court quoted Bruce's amicus brief written for PDI to establish that UM/UIM claims are "inherently and unavoidably arm's length and adversarial" in the Condio case. He has given numerous seminars and presentations to clients and other professional organizations and has trained claims personnel from Nationwide Insurance Company, AIG, Maryland Casualty, Zurich, CNA, U.S. Liability, Liberty Mutual, Progressive, GEICO, Keystone and other insurers in both bad faith and insurance coverage. He has also appeared as a panelist in seminars put on by Pennsylvania Bar Institute The Insurance Society of Philadelphia, The Pennsylvania Defense Institute, PaTLA, RIMS, Mealey's and The National Business Institute.
Significant Representative Matters
Polselli v. Nationwide (I) The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's first award of punitive damages against an insurer under Pennsylvania's bad faith statute and ruled that statutory bad faith claims were subject to the "clear and convincing evidence" burden of proof. 23 F. 3d 747 (3d Cir. 1997)
Polselli v. Nationwide (II) The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court ruling in favor of Bruce's client on the issue of whether a successful bad faith litigant could recover the attorney fees pursued in the prosecution of the separate and independent statutory bad faith claim. 126 F. 3d 524 (3d Cir. 1997)
Bonenberger v. Nationwide Although the Superior Court refused to disturb the trial court's finding of bad faith based on excerpts taken from outdated claims manual materials, the Court first began to recognize that UM and UIM claims could be evaluated and negotiated like third party liability claims. 791 A. 2d 378 (PA Super. 2002)
Condio v. Erie The Superior Court directly relied upon and quoted from Bruce's amicus curiae brief written for the Pennsylvania Defense Institute to finally recognize that UM and UIM claims are "inherently and unavoidably arm's length and adversarial." 899 A. 2d 1136 (PA. Super. 2006)
Baumhammers v. USAA In the insurance coverage litigation arising out of an infamous hate crime spree in which the insureds' adult son shot five people and paralyzed a 6th victim in four separate locations, the Superior and Supreme Courts were asked to decide whether the shooter's parents were covered under their homeowner's and excess policies for the victims' "negligent failure to prevent" claims. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the homeowner's policy afforded coverage to the parents and that the shooting claims constituted one occurrence. Bruce represented the excess insurer, which was found not to owe coverage due to intentional act and criminal act exclusions. 938 A. 2d 286 (PA 2007)
Green Machine Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance Allegations that an insured improperly copied a competitor's machine, along with its unique method for using the machine to cut concrete, and that it described that method in its promotional materials did not constitute an advertising injury and were not covered. 313 F. 3d 837 (3d Cir. 2000)
Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center For purposes of computing damages in a bodily injury tort case, the Supreme Court concluded that, where a provider accepts less than the amount initially billed for health care services given to the plaintiff as payment in full for the services due to health insurance contracts, the plaintiff may only recover the amount actually paid and accepted and not the amount originally billed. 765 A 2d 786 (PA 2001)
Jacobs Constructors, Inc v. N.P.S. Energy et al The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling in favor of Bruce's client, holding that the additional insured contractor was entitled to additional insured coverage for its tort liability to the plaintiff's explosion victims but not for any contractual liability which the contractor had undertaken toward the chemical plant owner. 264 F. 3d 365 (3d Cir. 2001)
Amber-Messick v. Progressive In the case decided just before the Supreme Court's Koken case, the District Court validated and enforced an auto insurer's right to decline arbitration of a UIM claim where the policy provided for arbitration by mutual consent. 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13100 (2005)
