Sean Shurelds v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, also known as Liberty Mutual; JOSHUA TISON

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1337
__________
SEAN SHURELDS,
Appellant
v.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, also known as Liberty Mutual;
JOSHUA TISON
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-01550)
Magistrate Judge: Honorable Craig M. Straw (by consent)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 26, 2026
Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 29, 2026 )
___________
OPINION*
___________
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM
Sean Shurelds appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his civil action. We will
affirm the District Court’s judgment.
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
history. This case arises out of Safeco Insurance Company of America’s denial of
Shurelds’s insurance claims for damage to his property. Shurelds brought a civil action
against Safeco alleging bad faith insurance practices, fraudulent misrepresentation, and
negligence. On Safeco’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the District Court,
acting through a Magistrate Judge on the parties’ consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
dismissed Shurelds’s bad faith insurance claim without prejudice, with leave to amend
the claim, and it dismissed the fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence claims with
prejudice. After several attempts to amend his complaint and add additional claims, the
District Court dismissed Shurelds’s entire civil action, and Shurelds timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. See Doe v. Princeton Univ., 30 F.4th 335,
341 (3d Cir. 2022). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). Because Shurelds is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his claims
liberally, but his complaint still must contain sufficient facts to support a claim for relief.
See Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We consider only the claims that Shurelds challenges in his opening brief. See In
re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99, 115 (3d Cir. 2016) (explaining that claims not developed in the
opening brief are forfeited). Starting with Shurelds’s claim of bad faith insurance
practices, we agree with the District Court that Shurelds failed to provide sufficient facts
to allege plausibly that Safeco did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under
the policy. See Rancosky v. Wash. Nat’l Ins. Co., 170 A.3d 364, 369 (Pa. 2017). Shurelds
recited the elements of a bad faith claim but provided no factual context regarding why it
was unreasonable to deny his claims.
Nor did Shurelds plausibly allege a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Shurelds
alleged that Safeco “knowingly made false statements regarding claim payments and
intentionally manipulated claims to avoid payouts.” But Shurelds offered no facts
supporting a reasonable inference that Safeco intended to mislead Shurelds with the
allegedly false statements. See Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 245 A.3d 637, 645–46 (Pa.
2021).
Finally, the District Court correctly concluded that it could not proceed with
Shurelds’s negligence claim. Shurelds’s claim was based on Safeco’s alleged failure to
perform under the insurance contract policy. Shurelds’s claim was barred by
Pennsylvania’s gist-of-the-action doctrine, which “prevents a purely contractual duty
from serving as the basis for a tort claim.” SodexoMAGIC, LLC v. Drexel Univ., 24 F.4th
183, 216 (3d Cir. 2022) (citing Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48, 65 (Pa. 2014)).
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Shurelds’s motion to
expedite consideration of the appeal is denied.

-- 3 of 3 --