with Plaintiffs wage loss claim, a reasonable jury could not conclude that Defendant’s requests and continued investigative efforts are clear and convincing evidence of bad faith. Under Pennsylvania law, investigative delay is a relevant factor in determining whether an actor’s conduct was in bad faith, but it is not dispositive. Kosierowski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 51 F.Supp.2d 583, 588-589 (E.D.Pa.1999). [A] long period of time between demand and settlement does not, on its own, necessarily constitute bad faith. Rather, courts have looked to the degree to which a defendant insurer knew that it had no basis to deny the claimant; if delay is attributable to the need to investigate further or even to simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred. Id.; see also Williams 83 F.Supp.2d at 572 (<HOLDING>). Here, Defendant denies that any delay was a
holding title company liable for bad faith holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence holding that even though insurance company could have completed claim investigation more quickly delay was not clear and convincing evidence for jury to determine presence of bad faith holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard holding that bad faith andor prejudice must be shown by clear and convincing evidence