Case Overview
Upright Material Handling Inc. v. Ohio Casualty Group
Case Type: Product Liability/ Insurance Bad Faith
Outcome: $1,800,000 jury verdict and $12 million Bad Faith Case
Client: Industrial worker Suzanne Bombar
Court/Resolution: Jury Trial/ Bench trial in Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Background
This case involves an accident involving a forklift that amputated the Plaintiff’s, Suzanne Bombar, leg. Ms Bombar filed a complaint against the seller of the forklift, Upright, alleging strict liability and negligence. Bomar was an employee of the company, Lord Label at the time of the accident. A jury returned a verdict against Upright in negligence for $1,800,000.00.
On March 12, 2001, Upright filed the present Declaratory Judgment Action claiming that Ohio Casualty should have defended it during the course of the initial action and that Ohio Casualty should indemnify it for the verdict, and pay damages for alleged bad faith in handling the claim. The insurance policy at issue was sold to Upright by First Insurance Center as agents for Ohio Casualty. Original plaintiff, Suzanne Bombar, filed a Petition to Intervene as the real Party in interest, and her petition was granted by Order [entered] on April 29, 2002. The Intervenor Complaint was filed on May 24, 2002, [in which Ms. Bombar argued Upright was covered by the commercial liability policy at issue.]. On October 18, 2002, Suzanne Bombar was assigned all rights that Upright may have under its policy o [The insurance policy at issue was sold to Upright by First Insurance Center as agents for Ohio Casualty]. Original plaintiff, Suzanne Bombar, filed a Petition to Intervene as the real Party in interest, [and her petition] was granted by Order [entered] on April 29, 2002. The Intervenor Complaint was filed [on] May 24, 2002, [in which Ms. Bombar argued Upright was covered by the commercial liability policy at issue.]. On October 18, 2002, Suzanne Bombar was assigned all rights that Upright may have under its policy.
What Happened
Linde, Inc. manufactured the forklift and shipped the forklift to its subsidiary, Baker, Inc.. Baker then sold the forklift to a company, Upright, located in Avoca, Pennsylvania. Upright’s business was selling and fixing industrial equipment, including forklifts.
The forklift was shipped from Baker to Upright without a manufacturer’s backup alarm installed and Lord Label purchased the forklift from Upright without a backup alarm. At Lord Label’s request, the forklift was later equipped with a backup alarm by an employee of Upright. Evidence in the case showed that the alarm was repeatedly and intentionally disconnected by Lord Label’s employees, including the date on which the accident occurred. On the day of the accident Bombar, without warning or notice, was struck by the foklifit leading to the amputation of her leg.
A jury returned a verdict against Upright in negligence for $1,800,000.00.
Later, Upright sued Ohio Casualty Insurance in a declaratory judgment action. Upright claimed that Ohio Casualty should have:
- Defended them in the earlier lawsuit with Bombar
- Paid them back the $1.8M they had to pay to Bombar
- Paid damages for bad faith in handling their claim
Upright had bought its insurance policy through First Insurance Center, which acted as an agent for underwriter Ohio Casualty Insurance Company [hereinafter Ohio Casualty].
Suzanne Bombar (the person who originally sued Upright) asked to join this insurance lawsuit because she had a direct stake in the outcome. The court approved her request. She filed her complaint on May 24, 2002, arguing that Upright was covered by their commercial liability policy and alleged Bad Faith on the part of Ohio Casualty.
The Court transferred all of Upright’s rights under the insurance policy to Ms. Bombar.
The trial court filed an order granting Ms. Bombar’s motion for summary judgment as to Ohio Casualty. Specifically, the trial court concluded –
- The insurance policy at issue covers the underlying accident involving Ms. Bombar,
- Ohio Casualty was liable for the entire amount of the jury’s verdict in the underlying action, including interest at the rate of 3% above the prime rate of interest from the date the claim was made,
- The court awarded punitive damages against Ohio Casualty with attorney’s fees and costs, and
- The court awarded compensatory damages to the insured, Upright.
The court held that –
- West American was liable to Ms. Bombar for the entire jury verdict and delay damages totaling $2,393,458.65, plus interest of $1,513,260.00,
- West American is liable for punitive damages in an amount of four times the compensatory damages awarded by the jury’s verdict, equaling $7,200,000.00,
- West American is liable to Upright for compensatory damages in the amount of $700,000.00,
- West American is liable to Upright for attorney’s fees and costs totaling $91,212.50, and
- West American is liable to Ms. Bombar for attorney’s fees and costs for prosecution of a bad faith claim in the amount of $110,923.39. The total verdict rendered by the trial court order totaled $12,008,854.54 against West American.
The order was affirmed on appeal by West American.
The insurance company engaged in bad faith practices in handling the policyholder’s claim, failing to meet its legal and contractual obligations. The insurer’s conduct violated Pennsylvania’s insurance laws and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that exists in every insurance contract. The company’s actions caused significant financial harm and emotional distress to the policyholder beyond the original claim.
Legal Strategy
Our legal team, working as co-lead counsel with Robert W. Munley, argued that Upright West American Insurance Company is a property and casualty insurer and a subsidiary of The Ohio Casualty Insurance CompanyMaterial Handling, Inc. was negligent in the design and manufacture of the forklift, creating an unreasonably dangerous product. Through expert testimony and engineering analysis, we demonstrated that proper safety features, warnings, or design modifications could have prevented this devastating accident. The case emphasized how the defective forklift design failed to protect workers from foreseeable hazards, resulting in the catastrophic injury and amputation.
We further argued that the insurance company acted in bad faith by unreasonably denying, delaying, or undervaluing the policyholder’s legitimate claim. We demonstrated through documentary evidence and expert testimony that the insurer violated Pennsylvania insurance regulations and failed to conduct a reasonable investigation or provide a reasonable basis for claim denial. The case emphasized how bad-faith insurance practices harm consumers who pay premiums expecting fair treatment in return.
Case Outcome
After a full jury trial, the jury awarded $1.8 million to Plantiff. This verdict recognized the severity of the leg amputation, the profound impact on his ability to work and live independently, and the lifetime of medical care and adaptive equipment he would require as a result of the defective forklift.
After a bench trial as required by Pennsylvania law for bad faith cases, the judge awarded a $12 million verdict against the insurance company. This substantial award recognized both the economic damages caused by the bad faith conduct and the need to hold insurance companies accountable for violating their duties to policyholders.
Why It Matters
This case highlights the critical responsibility manufacturers have to design safe industrial equipment that protects workers from foreseeable injuries. When companies prioritize cost-cutting over worker safety, the consequences can be devastating and permanent. The jury verdict holds equipment manufacturers accountable for producing safe products and ensures that workers who suffer catastrophic injuries due to defective equipment receive compensation for their lifetime needs, including prosthetics, medical care, and vocational rehabilitation.
This case underscores the critical importance of holding insurance companies accountable when they act in bad faith toward their policyholders. Insurance is based on trust and the promise that companies will honor their obligations when claims arise. The significant verdict sends a strong message that insurers must deal fairly with their customers and cannot abuse their position of power to deny legitimate claims. It ensures that policyholders have recourse when insurance companies prioritize profits over their contractual and legal obligations.
