an offer effectively denies an insured the benefits of the insurance policy should focus “primarily on what [the insurer] knew or should have known at the time the offer was made.” See Morelia, 2013 WL 1562032, at *4. The reasonableness of State Farm’s offer here turns on whether plaintiffs internal bleeding can be traced to plaintiffs use of NSAIDs he took to manage pain resulting from the car accident. If it was unreasonable for State Farm to determine that plaintiffs gastro-intestinal bleeding was unrelated to his use of NSAIDs, then its offer was unreasonable and in violation of IFCA because State Farm offered an amount it knew, in light of the medical evidence it received from plaintiff, was significantly less than the value of plaintiffs claim. See Morelia, 2013 WL 1562032, at *4 (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, the Court finds that there is a
holding that after learning the information justifying rescission an insurers four month delay in seeking it was unreasonable as a matter of law holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint  was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits holding insurers oral promise to settle a claim was an original undertaking and need not be in writing holding that as a matter of law an insurers offer was an unreasonable denial of the payment of benefits where it valued the claim internally between 1119480 and 1569480 but offered only 1500 to settle the claim