The insureds’ suit for coverage due to a collapse of their barn was dismissed while the bad faith against the insurer survived. Funaro v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227346 (W. D. Pa. Nov 19, 2025).

The insureds’ barn was insured by State Farm. The insureds alleged that the barn roof collapsed from the weight of snow, causing damage to the structure of the barn itself and the contents of the barn (including a custom French stove that the insureds alleged was worth between $90,000 and $100,000).

State Farm tendered approximately $40,000 to the insureds. The insureds consulted with a contractor who estimated it would cost approximately $225,000 to repair the barn. State Farm refused the insureds’ demand for additional benefits. The insureds then hired a public adjuster who requested an appraisal on the issue of repairing the barn.

The adjuster assigned to the claim T.J. Ortman who refused to agree to an appraisal because more than one year had passed since the date of the loss. The policy included a one-year suit limitation provision. State Farm issued a $35,000 payment for the stove.

The complaint alleged that Ortman interfered with and obstructed the insureds’ efforts to obtain benefits in a number of ways , including declining an appraisal, falsely telling the insureds that they were not entitled to benefits for contents of the barn, falsely telling the insureds that they could only recover for contents of the barn that were directly underneath the portion of the roof that had collapsed and that were physically damaged, and falsely telling the insureds that they could not recover benefits on the French stove because they had received it as a gift.

Plaintiffs filed suit against State Farm and Ortman asserting four counts: (I) specific performance to complete an appraisal against State Farm; (II) statutory bad faith against both State Farm and Ortman; (III) breach of contract against State Farm and (IV) tortious interference with insurance contract against Ortman.

State Farm moved to dismiss. The court dismissed Count II, the bad faith Count, against Ortman because the Pennsylvania statute only applied to an insurer, not a insurance adjuster. In Count IV, tortious interference, the insureds did not allege facts showing that Ortman was acting as an entity separate from State Farm. Therefore, the Count was dismissed as to Ortman but not as to State Farm..

The court then addressed Counts I (specific performance) and III (breach of contract). Count I sought specific performance, asking the court to compel State Farm to participate in the appraisal. The insureds’ alleged that the loss occurred on January 10, 2021. The complaint was not filed until December 3, 2024, long after the period provided in the one-year suit limitation provision of the policy. Since the request for specific performance of the appraisal clause arose from the insureds’ attempt to enforce their rights under the policy, and could constitute a remedy for the breach of contract claim, the specific performance claim was also time-barred by the suit limitation provision,. Count I was therefore dismissed. The breach of contract claim in Count III was barred by the one-year suit limitation.

State Farm was ordered to file an answer to the bad faith claim, Count II.