Case Title: Rohm & Hass Co. v. Continental Casualty Co. et al. (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2001-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-147-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY and ROHM AND HAAS DELAWARE VALLEY INC., Appellants v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., and THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY and ROHM AND HAAS DELAWARE VALLEY INC., Appellants v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., and CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON and CERTAIN LONDON MARKET INSURANCE COMPANIES, Appellees ________________________________ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 7 & 8 E.D. Appeal Docket 2000 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court, Docket Nos. 00670PHL98 and 00671PHL98, entered on May 6, 1999, reargument en banc denied July 27, 1999, as amended July 30, 1999, vacating the December 31, 1997 Judgment in favor of appellants in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, November Term, 1991, No. 3449. 732 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1999) ARGUED: October 17, 2000 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: October 18, 2001 I agree with the majority that the Superior Court properly reversed the trial court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Appellants because the evidence clearly supported the jury’s verdict with respect to Appellees’ defense of fraud, i.e., that [J-183-2000] 2 Appellants fraudulently concealed the pollution at Whitmoyer. Given that Appellees demonstrated that they were not responsible for indemnifying Appellants on the basis of fraud, however, I see no need for the majority to address the merits of Appellees’ additional defenses of known loss and late notice. Lindstrom v. Corry, 763 A.2d 394, 395 (Pa. 2000).