2010 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 3-16-2010 

# N at ion wide M utl Ins C o v . Ro se B roph

y 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 . 09-2141

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 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 git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . 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 " Nat ion wide M utl In s C o v

. Ros e B r op h

y " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1711. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1711H o n . A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orJ udge, U ni t ed St at es * C our tof A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2141

NAT I ONWI DE M UT UAL I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY v . RO S E BR OP HY, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . N o. 08- cv- 02108) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February11, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , R O T H and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 16, 2010) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT he D i s tr i ct C our t had subj ect m at t er j ur i s di ct i on under28 1 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 2 T A SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p ell an t R o se B rop h yap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er d en y ing B rop h y ’s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o A ppel l ee N at i onw i de M u tu a l I n s u r a n c e Co . ( “ Na t i o n wi d e ” ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 I. T he fo l l ow i ng fact s, as r eci t ed b yt he D i stri ctC ou rt , are und i sputed. B rophyi s a m ai l carr i erfort he U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce. O n O ct ober15, 2001, s he w as r etur ni ng t o t he pos toffi ce i n hers t andar d m ai l del i veryt ruck w hen s he w as i n a col l i s i on w i t h a vehi cl e dr i ven byM y l ene Sw eene y . B r ophys uffe r ed s er i ous i nj ur i es i n t he col l i s i on. B ro p h ye v e n tu a llyse ttl e d w ith S w e e n e yf o r th e lim its o f

S w e e n e y ’s lia b ili ty i ns ur ance pol i cy . She t hen fi l ed a c l ai m w i t h heri ns ur er , N at i onw i de, s eeki ng addi t i onal co m p en sati o n thro u g h h er u n d erinsu red m o tori st co v era g e. N ati o n w ide d en ied B rop h y ’s cl ai m , ci t i ng herpol i cy ’ s excl us i on of i nj ur i es i ncurr ed w hen “us [i ng] . . . anym ot or vehi cl e . . . t o carr yper s ons orpr oper t yfora fe e. ” A pp. at64. I n t hi s act i on, N at i onw i de s eeks a dec l ar at or yj udgm entt hatB r ophy ’ s i nj ur i es w er e notcover ed byherpol i cy . B r ophyfi r s tm oved t o r emand t he ac t i on t o arbi t r at i on, w h ich w as d en ied. T h e p arti es th en ev en tuallyfil ed cro ss-m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed B r ophy ’ s m ot i on, gr ant ed N at i onw i de’ s , and ent er edW e revi ew t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order r esol ving cross- 2 m o tio n s fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . St ar t z el l v. C i t y of P hi l a. , 533 F. 3d 183, 192 ( 3d. C i r . 2008) . U nderPenns y l vani a l aw , w hi ch t he part i es agr ee i s appli ca bl e her e, “the i nt erpr et at i on of an i ns ur ance contr actr egar di ng t he exi s t ence ornon- exi s t ence of cover age i s gener al l yper form ed b yt he court . ” N a tio n w id e Mu t. I ns . C o. v. C

PB I nt ’ l , I nc. , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 9 1 , 5 9 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).

3 ju d g m e n t in N a tio n w id e ’s f a v o r. (A p p . 3 -1 5 , 1 6 .) B ro p h ytim e ly ap p e a ls . (A p p . 1 -2 .) 2 II. W e mustdeci de the meani ng and ef fec tof Endors ement 2538 t o t he i ns ur ance p o li cyb etw ee n B rop h yan d N ati o n w ide. T h at en d o rsem en t set s o u t B rop h y ’s under i ns ur ed mot or i s tcover age. B r ophycont ends thatt he D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed thr ee err ors i n it s i nterpret at i on of h er pol i cy . W e add res s each o f t hese co ntent i on s se ria tim . A. E ndor s ement 2538 excl udes fr om N at i onw i de’ s under i ns ur ed mot or i s tcover age t he “[ u] s e of a nym ot orvehi cl e byan i ns ur ed t o carr yper s ons orpr oper t yfora fe e. ” A pp. at64. B r ophyar gues t hatt hi s l anguage i s ambi guous and s houl d t her efor e have b e e n in te rp re te d in h e r f a v o r. See M

adis on C ons t r . C o. v. H ar l eys vi l l e Mut . I

ns . C o. , 735 A . 2d 100, 106 ( Pa. 1999) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, how ever , t hatt he l anguage unambi guous l yexcl uded B r ophy ’ s i nj ur i es fr om cover age. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt. T he l anguage ati s s ue her e, ors ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l arl anguage , has been the s ubj ect o f n u m e ro u s la w s u its th ro u g h o u t th e U n ite d S ta te s . See , e. g. , Ci n c i n n a t i I n s . Co . v . W.4

A m . I ns . C o. , 11 2 F . S up p. 2d 71 8, 72 1-22 (C . D . Il l . 20 00 ) ( coll ect i ng cases) . In t he m ost fac tual l yanal ogous Penns y l vani a ca s e, t he Super i orC our thel d t hatt hi s l anguage e x c lu d e d f

ro m c o v e ra g e th e in

ju rie s th a t a d e liv e rytru c k d riv e r in c u rre d w h e n h e w a s in h is d e liv e ry tru c k . See B r os ovi c v. N at i onw i de Mut . I

ns . C o. , 841 A . 2d 1071, 1073- 74 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2004) . G i ven thatt he Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a di d notexpr es s any di s agr eementw i t h B r os ovi c w h e n p re se n ted w ith th e o p p o rtu n ity , w e f in d th e a n a ly sis in B r os ovi c c o n v in c in g . See P r udent i alP r op. & Cas. I ns . C o. v. Sar tno , 903 A . 2d 1170, 1 1 7 6 (P a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ A d e liv e ry v a n is c e rt a in ly a v e h ic le u s e d to c a rr yp ro p e rt yf o r a f e e .” ( quot i ng B ro so v ic , 8 4 1 A .2 d a t 1 0 7 4 ) (a ltera tio n o m itt e d )); s ee al s o R at us h v. N

at i onw i de Mut . I ns . C o. , 619 A . 2d 733, 733 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1992) ( concl udi ng t hatpol i cyl anguage e x c lu d e d f

ro m c o v e ra g e th e in

ju rie s a tax i d riv e r su sta in e d w h ile h e w a s “ d riv in g to h is h o m e a n d h ad n o inten ti o n o f c arry ing p erso n s fo r a f ee ”). B r ophy ’ s r el i ance on Sar tno i s mi s p l a c e d . I n t h a tc a s e , t h e P e n n s y l v a n i a S u p r e me C our tfound a s i m i l ar l yw or ded pr ovi s i on ambi guous as appl i ed t o t he empl oy ee of a p iz z e ri a w h o , a m o n g o th e r d u tie s , o c c a s io n a lly u s e d h is p e rs o n a l v e h ic le to d e liv e r p iz z a s . Sar tno , 903 A . 2d at1171- 73. T he courtconcl uded thata r eas onabl e r eadi ng of t he pol i cy w as t hat“Sar t no di d notcarr ypr oper t yfora fe e bec aus e ther e w as no del i verychar ge. ” I d. a t 1 1 7 7 ; s ee al

s o i d. at1175 ( ci t i ng w i t h appr oval an O hi o Supr eme C our tdeci s i on t hata s i m i l aracc i dent“w oul d n o t be exc l uded byt he pol i cy , s i nce ne i t her[t he pi zze r i a] nori t s cus t om er s pai d [t he i ns ur ed dr i ver ] a fe e s peci fi cal l yfordel i ver i ng t he pi zza ”5

(em p h asis in o ri g inal)). I n t hi s cas e, how ever , notonl yw as B r ophyoper at i ng a vehi cl e ow ned byher empl oy er , butt he pr i m ar ypurpos e of thatvehi cl e – i ndeed, t he pr i m arybus i nes s of her empl oy er– w as t he del i veryof m ai l fora fe e. U nl i ke i n Sar tno , t her e i s no ques t i on t hat th e p o s t o f

f ic e ’s c u s to m e rs p a id to h a v e th e irm a il c o lle c te d , tr a n s p o rt e d , a n d d e liv e re d . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e s ee no a m bi gui t yi n t he endor s ement and conc l ude that B r ophyus ed the mai l t ruck t o “ca r r ypr oper t yfora fe e. ” See i d. at1174 ( “[The det er m i nat i on w hethercontr actual l anguage i s ambi guous ] i s nota ques t i on t o be r es ol ved i n a vac uum . R ather , contr actual t er m s ar e ambi guous i f t heyar e s ubj ectt o m or e than one r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on w hen appl i ed t o a part i cul ars etof fa ct s . ” ( quot i ng M adis on C ons tr . C o. , 7 3 5 A .2 d a t 1 0 6 )) . B. W e al s o r ej ectB r ophy ’ s cont ent i on t hatt hi s cas e fa l l s w i t hi n t he ambi tof t he pol i cy ’ s arbi t r at i on cl aus e. T hatcl aus e pr ovi des fort he arbi t r at i on of di s put es “aboutt he r i ghtt o r ecove rdamages fr om t he ow nerordr i verof an unde r i ns ur ed mot orvehi cl e or t he amount of s uch damages . ” A pp. at65. B r ophy ’ s pol i cyal s o pr ovi ded, how ever , t hat “[q] ues t i ons bet w een the i nj ur ed part yand [N at i onw i de] r egar di ng w hethert he i nj ur ed p a rtyis a n in su re d u n d e r th is c o v e ra g e , o r th e lim its o f su c h c o v e ra g e , are n o t su b jec t to arbi t r at i on and s hal l be dec i ded bya courtof l aw . ” A pp. at64. I n t hi s cas e t her e i s no di s put e overB r ophy ’ s “r i ghtt o r ecove rdamages ” fr omS w e e n e y ; in d e e d , sh e h a s a lre a d yd o n e so . N o r a re th e a m o u n t o f su c h d a m a g e s y e t in di s put e. R ather , t he part i es her e di s agr ee a boutw hetherB r ophym ays eek a ddi t i onal compensa t i on fr om N at i onw i de. W e have hel d t hats uch pr el i m i narycover age que s t i ons f a ll o u ts id e o f

s im ila r a rb itr a tio n c la u s e s . See N ati on w i de Mut. Ins. C o. v. C osenza , 258 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); S ta te Fa rm Mu t. A u to . In s. C o . v. C o v iello , 233 F. 3d 710, 7 1 7 -20 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In li g h t of the c lear p o li cylang u ag e, w e se e n o rea so n to d ep art from t hese ho l dings. C. Fi nal l y , B r ophyar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tr efus ed t o cons i der evi dence t hatN at i onw i de had c l ar i fi ed the l anguage of t he exc l us i onarycl aus e ati s s ue here aft er the acc i den ti n thi s case. O nlyw here a con t ract ’s l ang uag e i s am biguou s, how ever , m aya courtcons i derext r i ns i c orpar ol evi dence t o det er m i ne the i nt entof t he p a rt ie s . Fer r erv. Trs . of the U ni v. of P a. , 825 A . 2d 591, 608 ( Pa. 2002) . B eca us e the D istric t C o u rt c o rre c tlyf o u n d th a t th e c o n tra c t’s la n g u a g e w a s u n a m b ig u o u s a s a p p lied to t he fa ct s of t hi s cas e, i tdi d noter ri n r efus i ng t o cons i dert he extr i ns i c evi dence B r ophy p re s e n te d . III . F o r t h e a b o v e-stated rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the ju d g m en t of

the D istri ct C o u rt gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o N at i onw i de.

6