2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-25-2007

Subclass 2 Master v. St Paul Fire

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-2755

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Subclass 2 Master v. St Paul Fire" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 381.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/381
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-2755

 

* SUBCLASS 2 OF THE MASTER CLASS

OF PLAINTIFFS DEFINED AND CERTIFIED

IN THE JANUARY 30, 2006 AND JULY 28, 2006

ORDERS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK

COUNTY, ILLINOIS IN THE LITIGATION

CAPTIONED TRAVEL 100 GROUP, INC. V.

THE MELROSE HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.,

DOCKET NO. 03 CH 12536,

 Appellant

v.

ST. PAUL FIRE AND

MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

* (Amended as per the Clerk's 10/10/06 Order)

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-03467)

District Judge: Hon. Berle M. Schiller

 

Argued: September 18, 2007

Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and WEIS, Circuit Judges

 
2

JUDGMENT ORDER

The insured, Melrose Hotel Company, filed an action in Pennsylvania state court

seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance

Company (the defendant appellee), has the responsibility to defend it from a class action

lawsuit filed by the Travel 100 Group, Inc. in an Illinois state court, alleging that

Melrose’s unsolicited fax advertisements violated the Telephone Consumer Protection

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and various state laws. In time, Melrose signed a settlement

agreement with Travel 100, providing for an entry of judgment against Melrose for 1.9

million dollars and assignment of Melrose’s coverage rights against St. Paul should it

refuse to pay $500,000 toward the settlement. When St. Paul refused, Melrose (on behalf

of Travel 100) filed this action for a declaratory judgment against St. Paul in a

Pennsylvania state court seeking a declaration that St. Paul must defend and indemnify

Melrose in the Travel 100 litigation. St. Paul removed this action to the District Court on

the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and the Court granted summary judgment for St. Paul.

On appeal, Melrose argues that the District Court should have denied St. Paul’s

motion for summary judgment because the Travel 100 complaint triggered St. Paul’s duty

to defend under the policy; that the District Court misconstrued the Travel 100 complaint;

that the District Court’s construction of the policy was not supported by Pennsylvania

law, and that the District Court’s conclusion was contrary to the reasonable expectations

of the insured.
3

We have reviewed the briefs filed by the parties, heard oral argument on this

matter, and conclude that, essentially for the reasons set forth by the District Court, its

judgment will be affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter 

Circuit Judge

Dated: 25 September 2007