2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-7-2004 

# P r ude n t i al P r op v

. Es t at e Ab do E li a s P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-3031

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P r ude n t i al P r op v

. Es t at e Abdo El i as " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 518. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/518NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNIT ED STA TES C OURT OF A PPE AL FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-3031
PRUDENT IAL PROPE RTY AND CAS UALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v. ESTATE OF A BDO EL IAS, Dece ased; TONI ABD O ELIAS; CHARBEL ELI AS; AZI Z ELI AS; PI ERRE E LI AS; ADIB E ELI AS

Estate of Abdo E lias, Deceased; Toni Elias; Charbel Elias; Pierre Eli as; Adibe Elias, Ap pellan ts
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Civi l No. 02-cv- 02610) District Judge: H on. W illiam H. Y ohn, Jr.
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 12, 2004 BE FO RE : RE ND EL L, C OW EN and LA Y* , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: July 7, 2004)
OPI NION

*H ono rable D onald P. La y, Senior U nited S tates C ircuit Jud ge fo r the E ighth C ircuit, sitting by designation.1 Toni Elias , CharbelElias, Aziz Elias and Pierr e Elias are the surviving sons of

decedent Abdo Eli as; Adibe El ias i s the dece dent’s surviving wife. 2 CO W EN , Circuit

Judge
. On N ovember 30, 2000, A bdo Elias (the “decedent”) was fatally injured as a pedestrian when he was str uck by an unde rinsured motoris t. Afte r the dec edent’s death, his fam ily dema nded cove rage u nder autom obile in suran ce po licies issu ed to tw o of his
son s by ap pelle e Pr ude ntial Pro per ty & C asu alty Ins ura nce Co mp any (“ Pru den tial”)
. Prudenti al pai d the ful l covera ge amount under one s on’s poli cy but denied cover age under the ot

her, fi ling t

he inst ant action in order to s ecure a decl arator y j udgment that

no bene fits w ere du e und er that p olicy. The Distric t Cou rt gran ted su mm ary judgm ent in favor of Prudential on t he grounds that the decedent was not a resi dent rel ative in the househ old of the so n unde r who se policy Pruden tial had denied coverag e. The de cedent’s estate and his su rviving relatives, To ni Elias (“To ni”), Charbe l Elias, Aziz E lias (“Aziz”), Pierr e Elias (“Pier

re”), and Adibe Elias (coll ecti vely , “appel lants ”), now appealthe Distric t Cou rt’s orde r gran ting su mm ary judgm ent in favor of P rude ntial. 1 For the
reas ons disc uss ed b elow , we wil l aff irm t hat o rde r.. The factualbackground of t his action was thor oughly discuss ed by t

he District Co urt, and need only briefly be recited here. P rude ntial issue d sep arate a utom obile insura nce p olicies to two mem bers o f the E lias fam ily. The first p olicy, issued to A ziz Elias, provided cove rage to t he named insure d, his or her r esident spouse, and any “resid ent rela tive,” if a ny of the foreg oing we re hit by an und erinsu red m otor v ehicle3

while a pedes tri an. The poli cy defined “resi dent rel ative ” as “someone who li ves in [t he named insured’ s] househol d and is r elat ed to [the named insure d] byblood, mar riage, adoption or is a ward or foster child. ” The policy li sted Aziz’s address as 153 West G re en St re et, A lle nt ow n, P en ns ylv an ia ( th e “ A lle nt ow n a dd re ss ”) . T he se co nd po lic y, issued to Toni Elias , cont ained l anguage identicalto the one issued to Aziz, provi ding underins ured motori st cover age to Toni ( as the named i nsured), his re sident spouse, and a “resi dent rel ative ,” and adopting the s ame definition of “re sident relative. ” The policy listed T oni’s a ddre ss as 2 10 S outh Sixth Street, W hiteha ll, Penn sylvania (th e “W hiteha ll address”). The de ce de ntre si de d a t t he All en to wn a ddres s, as di d hi s s ons Azi z and P ie rr e. At no time di d eithe r the dec edent or Pi erre r eside at the Whitehal l addres s. I n November of 200 0, T oni add ed P ierre to h is po licy as a licen sed ope rato r resi den t in th e ho use hol d. Pierre wa s not a ctually a res ident in Ton i’s hou seho ld, and the term s of T oni’s p olicy in fac t pro hib ited t he a ddi tion of n onr esid ent fam ily me mb ers a s lice nse d op erato rs. Appellant s maintain that t hey are enti tled to coverage under Toni’s pol icy

because the insurance agent erred by incorrectly listing Pierre’s res idence as the Whitehall address wh en P ierre w as ad ded to the po licy. Implicit in th is argu men t is the co ntentio n that, because Pie rre was l ist ed on the pol icy and the decede nt res ided in t he same household a s Pierre, the deced ent wa s entitled to coverag e unde r Toni’s po licy. As the District Court correctly determi ned, however, the pla in langua ge of the pol icy establ ishes t

hat4

und erin sure d m oto rist co ver age onl y exte nds to re side nt re lativ es o f the nam ed in sure d. Although Pier

re, Toni , and Jenan El ias ( Toni’s wife) are li sted as lice nsed operat ors under the poli cy, only

Toni is l ist ed as the named insured. Therefore, under no circumstances would the decedent

have been entitled to coverage under the poli cy mere ly

by vi rtue of his re latio nsh ip w ith P ierre
. See Peerless D yeing Inc. v. Industrial Risk Ins urers , 573 A.2d 541, 543 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (“The l aw of Pennsyl vania re quires that an insurance pol icy be con strue d in acc ord anc e w ith its p lain, c om mo n, an d or din ary m ean ing .”). Also unav ailing is a ppella nts’ co ntentio n that n eglige nce b y the insur ance agen t in adding P ierre to Toni’s po licy entitl es the dece dent to cov erage. Th e District Cou rt determi ned that

this argument was not properly before i t because appell ants had not rais ed it in their answer to Prude ntial ’s complaint. Becaus e appell ants have not chall enged the Distri ct Court’ s ruling in thi s regar d, the y have not properly pr eserved t

heir argument for
reso lutio n on the m erits. See Fed . R. A pp. P roc. 28 (5); Brenner v. Local514 United Brotherh ood of

Carpe nters , 927 F.2d 1283, 1298 (3d Cir. 1991). Even were we to r each the m erits, the u ndisp uted e viden ce esta blishes that Pie rre Elia s nev er inten ded to purc hase a sep arate in suran ce po licy unde r wh ich m emb ers of his ow n ho useh old w ould be covered, but rat

her sought

to add himsel f to his brother Toni’s pol icy

as a member of Toni’s house hold in order to s ave money on i nsurance pr emiums. Any ne gligenc e by t he insurance agent in lis ting t he Whitehalladdress a s Pierre’s re sidence i s not material to the issue of coverage for

the decedent

under Toni’s policy . The District Court’s order willbe5

aff irme d in all re spe cts.