2009 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 11-18-2009 

# W imb e rl y Alli son T ong & Go o, I v

. T ra vele rs P rop e r ty C a s ualty C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2976

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W imbe rly All i s on T

on g & Goo, I v

. T r a vele r s P r ope r ty C as ualty C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 242. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/242NOT 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. 08- 2976

_____________ W IM B E R L Y A L L IS O N T O N G & G O O , IN C ., A ppel l ant

v. T RA VE L E RS P RO P E RT Y C AS UAL T Y C O M P A N Y O F A M E R IC A ; GUL F UNDE RWRI T E RS I NS UR ANC E GR OUP A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 05- cv- 2550) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember17, 2009 B efore: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: N ovember18, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ff W i m ber l y , A l l i s on, T ong & G oo, I nc. ( “W A T G ”) appea l s the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o D efe ndant s T r avel er s Pr opertyC as ual tyC om pany2

of A m er i ca ( “Tra vel er s ”) and G ul f U nderw r i t er s I ns ur ance G r oup ( “G ul f”) . T he D i s tr i ct C our thel d thatT r avel er s and G ul f di d nothave a dutyt o defe nd W A T G i n the under l y i ng act i ons agai ns tW A T G ar i s i ng outof a pa r ki ng gar age c ol l aps e dur i ng cons truct i on on t he T rop ican a C asin o R eso rtin A tl an ti c C ity , N ew Jerse y(“T rop ican a” ). I . T he U nderl y i ng O ccurr ence I n N ovember2000, W A T G , an ar chi t ectur al fi r m , ent er ed i nt o an O w ner - A r chi t ect agr eementw i th T r opi cana forthe cons truct i on of a pa r ki ng gar age. O n O ct ober30, 2003, s ix le v e ls o f

th a t p a rk in g g a ra g e c o lla p s e d , c a u s in g n u m e ro u s d e a th s a n d s e ri o u s in ju ri e s . G o v a th lay G iv e n s f

iled th e f irst la w su it ag a in st W A T G a n d n u m e ro u s o th e r d e f e n d a n ts s eeki ng compensa t oryand puni t i ve damages ar i s i ng outof i nj ur i es he s us t ai ned dur i ng the col l aps e. G i vens al l eged thatW A T G fai l ed “t o per form as a r eas onabl e ar chi t ect w oul d underthe s ame ors i m i l arci r cumst ance s , ” “f ai l ed t o pr oper l ydes i gn the parki ng g a ra g e , fa iled to p ro p e rlysu p e rv ise th e c o n stru c tio n o f th e p a rk in g g a ra g e , fa iled to pr ovi de pr opers peci fi cat i ons forthe cons truct i on . . . fai l ed t o i ns pectand s upervi s e the wo r k . . . a n d o th e r wi s e d e v i a t e d f r o m th e s t a n d a r d o f

c a r e e x p e c t e d o f

a r c h i t e c t s . ” A. 314. G i vens al s o al l eged thatW A T G “knew ors houl d have know n of the dange r ous condi t i on of the parki ng gar age . . . butfai l ed t o t ake a ct i on . . . ” and thatG i ven s uffe r ed i nj ur i es as a “r es ul tof the negl i gence , car el es s nes s , r eckl es s nes s , and/ orw i l l ful and w a n to n c o n d u c t o f

[ W A T G ] . . . .” A . 3 1 4 -1 5 . A hot el /r es t aur antnearthe s i t e of the gar age c ol l aps e ca l l ed A notherT i m e, I nc.3

a lso f iled a c o m p lain t ag a in st W A T G . A n o th e r T im e a lleg e d n e g lig e n c e , p riv a te nui s ance , and publ i c nui s ance agai ns tnum er ous defe ndant s , i ncl udi ng W A T G , and s oughtcompensa t oryand puni t i ve damages . Speci fi cal l y , A notherT i m e al l eged that defe ndant s “unr eas onabl yi nt er fer ed w i th the us e and e nj oym entof the pr opertyof the Pl ai nt i ff, ” w hi ch r es ul t ed i n economi c l os s and di m i ni s hed pr opertyval ue and that d e f e n d a n t s i n t e r f

e r e d wi th th e r i g h to f

th e p u b l i c t o u s e a n d tr a v e r s e th e p u b l i c s tr e e t s . A. 341- 42. T he fa ctual al l egat i ons agai ns tthe def endant s thatform ed the bas i s forA not her T i m e’ s cl ai m s i ncl ude vi ol at i ng cons truct i on codes , fai l ur e t o des i gn, cons truct , and m a in tain th e g a ra g e in a w a yth a t w o u ld e n su re it d id n o t co llap se , fa ilu re to p ro p e rly su p e rv ise th e c o n stru c tio n , fa ilu re to d e sig n a n d f o llo w p ro p e r b lu e p rin ts, a n d f a ilu re to n o tic e w a rn in g s ig n s o f a d a n g e r o f

c o lla p s e . M anyot herpl ai nt i ffs fi l ed s i m i l ars ui t s thatw er e cons ol i dat ed us i ng a M as t er C om pl ai ntal l egi ng thatW A T G devi at ed fr om the s t andar d of ca r e of pr ofes s i onal ar chi t ect s , thatthe engi neer i ng des i gn of the gar age di d notconform t o O ccupa t i onal Safetyand H eal th A dm i ni s tr at i on ( “O SH A ”) s t andar ds , w hi ch ca us ed the col l aps e of the gar age, and thatW A T G w as ot herw i s e ca r el es s and negl i gent . T he M as t erC om pl ai nt br oughtthe fol l ow i ng cl ai m s agai ns tal l defe ndant s , i ncl udi ng W A T G : l os s of cons or t i um , w r ongful death, w r ongful death - s ur vi vor s hi p, and by s t ander s ’ cl ai m s for e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s .W A T G al l eges thatthe cos t s of def ens e and s ett l ementexce eded the $1 mi l l i on l i m i tof 1 the C N A pr i m arypr ofes s i onal l i abi l i typol i cyand the $2 mi l l i on peroccurr ence / $5 m i l l i o n a g g r e g a t e l i m i to f th e C N A e x c e s s p r o f

e s s i o n a l l i a b i l i ty p o l i c y. S p e c i f i c a l l y, W A T G c la im s th a t it in c u rr e d $ 2 ,3 2 3 ,0 0 0 in d e f e n s e c o s ts th a t w e re n e v e r r e im b u rs e d . A ppel l ees cont end thatW A T G ’ s r equi r ed contr i but i on t o a gl obal s ett l ementw as $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 , w h ic h w a s p a id b yC N A . A p p e lle e s ’ B r. 1 5 , A . 1 4 , A . 4 0 2 -0 3 . 4 I I . T he L i abi l i t y P ol i ci es A tthe t i m e of the gar age c ol l aps e, W A T G had a pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i typol i cyand an ex ce ss p rof

essio n al l iabili typ o li cyw ith C o n ti n en tal C asu altyC o m p an y(“C N A ”), a 1 c o m m e rc ial lia b ili typ o licyw ith T ra v e ler s, a n d a c o m m e rc ial e x c e ss liab ili typ o licyw ith G u lf. T h e T ra v e ler s p o licyc o v e re d d a m a g e s a risin g o u t o f “ ‘b o d ilyin

ju ry ’ o r ‘p ro p e rty damage’ ” ca us ed byan “‘ occurr ence ’ ” i n the “‘ cover age t err i t ory . ’ ” The T r avel er s pol i cy al s o cont ai ned the fol l ow i ng excl us i on:

T h is in su ra n c e d o e s n o t ap p lyto “ b o d il y in ju ry ,” “ p ro p e rty damage, ” “pe r s onal i nj ury ” or “adve r t i s i ng i nj ury ” ar i s i ng outof the r ender i ng of or fai l ur e t o r ender any pr ofes s i onal s ervi ces by y ou oranyengi neer , ar chi t ectors ur vey orw ho i s ei ther empl oy ed byy ou orper form i ng w or k on y ourbehal f i n s uch c a p a c ity. Pr ofes s i onal s ervi ces i ncl ude: 1 . T he pre par i ng, appr ovi n g , o r f a i l i n g t o p r e p ar e or app rove m aps , shop draw i ng s, op i nions, report s, survey s, f i e l d o r d e r s , c h a n g e o r d e r s , o r dr aw i ngs and s peci fi cat i ons ; and 2 . Super vi s or y , i ns pect i on, arc h it ec tural or engi neer i ng a c tiv itie s . A . 136.5

T he G ul f comm er ci al exce s s l i abi l i typol i cypr ovi ded thatG ul f w oul d paythe

“‘ ul t i m at e netl os s ’ . . . w hi ch the i ns ur ed bec om es l egal l yobl i gat ed t o payas damages b e c a u se o f

‘b o d ilyin

ju ry ,’ ‘p ro p e rtyd a m a g e ,’ ‘p e rso n a l in ju ry ’ o r ‘a d v e rtisin g in

ju ry ’ to w hi ch thi s i ns ur ance appl i es . ” A . 179. G ul f agr eed t o defe nd anys ui tfordamages that ar e notpay abl e bythe under l y i ng i ns ur ance pol i cy , ei therbeca us e the damages w er e not c o v e re d o r b e c a u s e th e u n d e rl y in g in s u ra n c e w a s e x h a u s te d b yth e p a ym e n t o f c la im s . L ik e th e T ra v e ler s p o licy , the G u lf p o licy“ d o e s n o t ap p lyto ‘b o d ilyin ju ry ,’ ‘p ro p e rty damage, ’ ‘ per s onal i nj ury , ’ or‘ advert i s i ng i nj ury ’ ar i s i ng outof: 1. the r ender i ng of; or2. f a ilu re to re n d e r; a n yp ro f e s s io n a l s e rv ic e s b yo r f o r yo u .” A . 1 6 6 . I I I . D eni alof

C overage O n A pr i l 16, 2004, W A T G not i fi ed Tra vel er s of the G i vens compl ai ntand s ever al othercompl ai nt s . O n M ay12, 2004, T r avel er s deni ed cove r age ba s ed on the pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i tyexcl us i on i n t he pol i cy , s t at i ng that“due t o the s ervi ces y ou and y our s ubcontr act or s w er e per form i ng on thi s cons truct i on pr oj ect , as ar chi t ect s , cover age w oul d be exc l uded . . . . ” A . 1048. W A T G s ubs equent l ynot i fi ed Tra vel er s of addi t i onal s u i t s th a th a d b e e n f

i l e d a n d a s k e d T r a v e l e r s t o r e c o n s i d e ri t s c o v e r a g e p o s i t i o n . On D ecem ber 17, 2004 , T ravel ers again den i ed co verage b ut not ed thati f a cl ai m against W A T G w as br oughtthatw as unr el at ed t o i t s pr ofes s i onal act i vi t i es , a dutyt o defe nd w oul d ar i s e. T r avel er s fur theri nvi t ed W A T G t o pr ovi de Tra vel er s w i th anyaddi t i onal i nform at i on thatm ayi m pacti t s deci s i on. I n M ar ch and M ay2005, W A T G not i fi ed6

T r avel er s of addi t i onal cl ai m s butT r avel er s ’ pos i t i on on the deni al of cove r age di d not c h a n g e . O n A pr i l 16, 2004, W A T G al s o not i fi ed G ul f of the under l y i ng l aw s ui t s and re q u e ste d d e f

e n se a n d in d e m n if

ica tio n . O n F e b ru a ry4 , 2 0 0 5 , G u lf re sp o n d e d th a t th is r eques tw as pr ematur e as W A T G di d nots t at e thatpr i m arycover age w as exhaus t ed or deni ed, butnonethel es s r es erved i t s r i ghtt o denycover age ba s ed on the pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i tyexcl us i on. I n M ar ch 2005, W A T G not i fi ed G ul f of a ddi t i onal s ui t s and i n M ay 2005 W A T G not i fi ed G ul f thatT r avel er s w as notpr ovi di ng cover age, butG ul f neve r a g re e d to d e f

e n d o r i n d e m n if

yW A T G . I V . St andard of R evi ew Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e i f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t a nd the movi ng pa r tyi s e nt i t l e d t o s umm a ryj ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 56( c) . A ft ergi vi ng the nonmovi ng partyal l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s , ther e i s a genui ne i s s ue o f m a te ri a l f

a c t if a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld f in d f o r t h e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . R el i ance I ns . C o. v. Moes s ner , 121 F. 3d 895, 900 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed) . O urr evi ew of the d is tr ic t c o u rt ' s g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t is p le n a ry. Id . I n addi t i on, ourr evi ew of the in terp re tatio n o f

a n in su ra n c e c o n tra c t an d th e a p p lica b ili tyo f a p o licye x c lu sio n is p le n a ry. H

ar ad v. A etna C as . & Sur . C o. , 8 3 9 F .2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ).A ll p a rt ie s a g re e th a t N e w J e rs e yla w is a p p lic a b le to th is c a s e . 2 7 V . D u ty to In v estiga te U nderN ew J er s eyl aw , aft eran i ns ur ed not i fi es an i ns ur erof a pot ent i al cl ai m , t he 2 i ns ur erhas a dutyt o pr om pt l yi nves t i gat e the cl ai m and not i fythe i ns ur ed of the r es ul t s of th e in v e s tig a tio n w ith in a re a s o n a b le tim e . Gr ig gs v . B e r tr a m, 44 3 A . 2d 16 3, 17 0 (N . J. 1 9 8 2 ). A l though t he i ns ur ercannot i gnor e know n i nform at i on s i m pl ybeca us e i ti s not in c lu d e d in th e c o m p lain t, th e in su re r h a s n o d u ty to in v e stig a te p o ss ib le r ami fi cat i ons of the under l y i ng s ui tthatcoul d tr i ggerco ver age. R ather , the i ns ur ed bei ng s ued i s r es pons i bl e forpr om pt l yconvey ing t o i t s i ns ur ance c o m p a n yth e in f

o rm a tio n th a t it b e lie v e s w ill tr ig g e r c o v e ra g e . S L In d u s ., In c . v . A m . Mo to r is ts In s . C o ., 6 0 7 A .2 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 7 2 (N .J . 1 9 9 2 ). E ven W A T G conce des thatthe def endant s need onl yper form “s om e s embl ance ” of a n i nves t i gat i on and thatthi s need notbe “‘ fool - pr oof. ’ ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 29 ( ci t i ng U ni ver s al - R undl e C or

p. v. C om m er ci alU

ni on I ns . C o. , 7 2 5 A .2 d 7 6 , 8 9 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv. 19 9 9 )). W A T G cl ai m s thatthe def endant s di d noteven pe r form a cur s oryi nves t i gat i on in to th e c laim s p rio r to d e n y in g c o v e ra g e a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to a d d re ss th is i s s ue. W hi l e the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d nots peci fi cal l ydi s cus s thi s , i ti s cl earthatthe defe nd ants fulfi l l ed thei r dut yt o invest i gate the clai m s. U pon r ece i ptof the l ett er i nform i ng T r avel er s of the G i vens compl ai nt , D aw n M i nel l , a t echni cal s peci al i s tat T ravel ers , spok e t o b oth W A T G ’s corporat e cou nsel and “broke r. ” A . 10 34 . M i nell al so8

r evi ew ed the compl et e pol i cyand, bas ed on the fa ct s pr ovi ded as w el l as the count s i n t he G i vens compl ai nt , deci ded thatcover age s houl d be dec l i ned. A ft erM i nel l deni ed the c la im a n d W A T G c h a lle n g e d th is d e n ia l, th e c a s e w a s re a s s ig n e d to L o rr a in e A n k o s k o , a s eni orl i abi l i tyt echni cal s peci al i s t . A nkos ko i m m edi at el yobt ai ned out s i de couns el , J ohn T i n k e r , t o e n s u r e a n i n d e p e n d e n ta n d th o r o u g h r e v i e w o f c o v e r a g e . T i n k e rs e n tWATG a s even- page l ett erout l i ni ng T r avel er s ’ r eas ons fordeny i ng cover age a nd l i s t i ng num er ous document s thatw er e r evi ew ed i n m aki ng thatdeci s i on. Fur therm or e, T i nkeras ked W A T G t o pr ovi de Tra vel er s w i th anyaddi t i on i nform at i on i f “di s coveryi n the under l y i ng c a se g e n e ra tes f

a c ts s u p p o rtin g a c laim o f liab ili tya g a in st [ W A T G ] u n re late d to its p ro f e s s io n a l a c tiv itie s . . . .” A . 1 0 8 4 . L ik e w ise , C lay W o o d m a n , o n b e h a lf o f G u lf , rev iew e d n u m e ro u s d o c u m e n ts pr ovi ded byW A T G and w r ot e a de t ai l ed l ett ert o W A T G expl ai ni ng G ul f’ s deni al of cover age. Fur therm or e, G ul f m ai nt ai ned thatW A T G ’ s r eques tfora def ens e and ind em n ifi ca ti o n w as p rem ature b ec au se W A T G d id n o t i n d icate tha t th eir prim ary c o v e ra g e w a s e ith e r e x h a u s te d o r d e n ie d . B a se d o n th e a b o v e f

a c ts, it i s c lea r th a t T ra v e ler s a n d G u lf f u lf ill e d th e ir obl i gat i on t o i nves t i gat e the under l y i ng cl ai m s pr i ort o m aki ng a dec i s i on on cover age. V I . D ut y t o Def

e nd A n insu rer h as a d u tyto d ef en d if th e a ll eg ati o n s in the co m p lai n t, o n it s fa ce , are e n c o m p a s s e d b yth e ri s k s in s u re d a g a in s t b yth e p o lic y . W 9/PH CR eal Est ate LP v. Farm9

Fam i l y C as . I ns . C o. , 970 A . 2d 382, 391 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 2009) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . C over age i s det erm i ned bythe “na tur e of the cl ai m ” aga i ns tthe i ns ur ed, notby h o w th e u n d e rl y in g p la in tif f c h o o s e s to p h ra s e th e c o m p la in t. SL I ndus . , I nc. , 607 A . 2d at 12 72 . T he d utyt o d efen d m ayari se even i f t he u nd erl y i ng com plai nt i s m eri t l ess because a n in s u re r’ s d u ty to d e f e n d is b ro a d e r t h a n its d u ty to in d e m n if y . W 9/PH CR e a l Esta te LP , 970 A . 2d at391 ( ci t i ng V oor hees v. P r ef

er r ed Mut . I

ns . C o. , 607 A . 2d 1255, 1259 (N . J. 1 9 9 2 ). I ns ur ance pol i ci es s houl d be gi ven thei rpl ai n and or di narym eani ng, but s houl d be i nt erpr et ed “l i ber al l yi n favorof the i ns ur ed and s tr i ct l yagai ns tthe i ns ur er . ” I d. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I f a c om pl ai nti s ambi guous i ts houl d be i nt erpr et ed i n favorof the in s u re d . V

oor hees , 607 A . 2d at1259 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W hen the under l y i ng compl ai nt cont ai ns m ul t i pl e ca us es of ac t i on, the i ns ur erhas a dutyt o defe nd unt i l “eve rycover ed cl ai m i s el i m i nat ed. ” I

d. Pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i typol i ci es and gene r al l i abi l i typol i ci es ar e i nt ended t o cover d if f e re n t typ e s o f

ri s k . Sear ch ED P , I

nc. v. A m . H

om e Ass ur ance Co. , 632 A . 2d 286, 288 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1993) . Pr ofes s i onal l i abi l i typol i ci es ar e i nt ended t o cover r i s ks i nher entt o a part i cul arpr ofes s i on, s uch as the fa i l ur e t o per form w i th a s t andar d of s k ill e x p e c te d , a s o p p o s e d to ri s k s th a t a ri s e a s w ith m a n ytyp e s o f b u s in e s s e s . Id . For exampl e, the ‘ pr ofes s i onal ’ as pect s of a l aw pr act i ce i ncl ude gi vi ng l egal advi ce, fi l i ng su its, etc ., w h e re a s th e c o m m e rc ial a sp e c ts in c lu d e se tti n g u p a b u sin e ss , d e a lin g w ith s ta f f , p a y in g b ills , e tc . H

ar ad , 839 F. 2d at985. “A pr ofes s i onal actors ervi ce i s one10

ar i s i ng outof a voc at i on, cal l i ng, occupa t i on, orempl oym enti nvol vi ng s peci al i zed know l edge, l abor , ors ki l l , and the l aborors ki l l i nvol ved i s pr edomi nant l ym ent al or i nt el l ectual . . . . ” Id . a t 9 8 4 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h e c a teg o riz a tio n o f a p a rty ’s lia b ili ty is d e ter m in e d b a se d o n th e a c tiv ityth a t p a rtyw a s in v o lv e d in a t th e tim e th e liab ili ty a ro s e . Id . a t 9 8 5 . “F o r e x a m p le, if a n a tto rn e y , w h ile h o stin g a re a l es tate c lo sin g in h is o f f i c e , p l a c e s h i s b r i e f

c a s e o n th e f

l o o ra n d a c o l l e a g u e tr i p s o n i t , i s i n j u r e d a n d s u e s h i m, the l aw y er ’ s l i abi l i tyw oul d der i ve notfr om the r ender i ng of a pr ofes s i onal s ervi ce, but r atherfr om hi s oper at i on of a bus i nes s . ” I d. I n anal y zi ng w hethera pr ofes s i onal s ervi ces excl us i on i n a gene r al l i abi l i typol i cy appl i es , court s m us texami ne the “c har act erof the [i ns ur ed’ s ] conduct ” al l eged a nd the

“ n a tu re o f

th e se rv ice s” p e rf

o rm e d b yth e in su re d to d e ter m in e if th e in su re d ’s lia b ili ty

“ f lo w e d d ir e c tly” f

ro m a p ro f

e s s io n a l a c tiv ity. H

ar ad , 8 3 9 F . 2 d at 98 4 -85 . S o m e f ac tors thataff ectthi s cons i der at i on ar e w hetherornotthe under l y i ng act s of the i ns ur ed r equi r ed the s peci al i zed s ki l l and know l edge of s om eone i n the i ns ur ed’ s pr ofes s i on, w hethert he act s w er e w i thi n t he norm al pr act i ce of thatpr ofes s i on, and w hetherthe ac t s w er e done p u rs u a n t to a c o n tr a c t w h ic h p ro v id e d th e in s u re d w ith f in a n c ia l c o m p e n s a tio n . A tl. Mu t. I ns . C o. v. C ont ’ lN

at ’ lA m . I

ns . C o. , 3 0 2 A .2 d 1 7 7 , 1 8 1 (N .J . S u p e r. C t. L a w D iv . 1 9 7 3 ). W A T G co n ce d es th at th e p rof essio n al m alpra cti ce ex clus ion s in the p o li cyare v ali d an d ap p li ca b le t o the u n d erly ing p rof essio n al m alpra cti ce claim s. A p p ell an t’ s B r. 41. W A T G cont ends , how ever , thatT r avel er s and G ul f had a dutyt o defe nd the11

under l y i ng act i ons beca us e thos e compl ai nt s cont ai ned both excl uded pr ofes s i onal m a lp ra c tice c laim s a n d c o v e re d c laim s, su c h a s p e rso n a l in ju ry , w ro n g f

u l d e a th , p u b lic a n d p r i v a t e n u i s a n c e , b y s t a n d e re mot i o n a l d i s tr e s s , a n d l o s s o f c o n s o r t i u m. W ATG hi ghl i ght s the fa ctthatboth t he G i vens compl ai ntand the A n o th e rT i me compl ai ntal l ege “gene r al negl i gence . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 36. I n fur thers uppor tof r equi r i ng cover age, W A T G poi nt s outthatthe C as e I nform at i on St at ement s ( “C I S”) fi l ed w i th the under l y i ng compl ai nt s di d notcat egor i ze the compl ai nt s as “pr ofes s i onal m al pr act i ce” and no A ffi davi t s of M er i tw er e fi l ed w i th the compl ai nt s , w hi ch ar e r equi r ed underN ew J er s ey la w if a p a rt ya lle g e s p ro f

e s s io n a l m a lp ra c tic e . T h e b o tto m lin e h e re is th a t a ll of the al l egat i ons agai ns tW A T G i n the G i vens compl ai nt , the A n o th e rT i me co m p lai n t, an d the M aster C o m p lai n t arose o u t of W A T G ’s pr ofes s i onal s ervi ces as an ar chi t ect . W A T G ’ s onl yi nvol vementw i th the gar age col l aps e, w hi ch i s the bas i s of the under l y i ng s ui t s , i s thattheyhad an O w ner - A r chi t ect agr eementw i th T r opi cana and w er e per form i ng as an ar chi t ectur al fi r m i n acc or dance w i th thatcontr act . Pl ai nt i ffs have notpoi nt ed t o anyal l egat i ons of W A T G ’ s conductt hat w er e unr el at ed t o W A T G ’ s pr ofes s i onal ar chi t ectur al s ervi ces . U nderthe gui dance of H ar ad , itis c lea r th a t th e “ c h a ra c ter ” o f W A T G ’s “ c o n d u c t” a t issu e w a s p ro f e ss io n a l in

“ n a tu r e ” a n d th a tth e r e f o r e W ATG’ s p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i ty“ f l o we d d i r e c t l y ” f

r o m a p rof essio n al ac ti v ity , n am elyarc h it ec ture. 83 9 F . 2 d at 98 4 -85 . A s the D istri ct C o u rt poi nt s out , the fa ctthatthe pl ai nt i ffs di d notfi l e A ffi davi t s of M er i torcat egor i ze theT her efor e, w e nee d notaddr es s G ul f’ s cont ent i on thateven i f the exc l us i on di d not 3 a p p ly , W A T G is n o t en tit led to c o v e ra g e f ro m G u lf b e c a u se C N A h a d a n u n d isp u ted d u ty to d e f e n d a ll o f

th e u n d e rl y in g c la im s . 12 cl ai m s as pr ofes s i onal m al pr act i ce on the C I S for m s i s notdi s pos i t i ve bec aus e al l of the compl ai nt s i ncl uded numer ous defe ndant s , s om e of w hom w er e ac t i ng i n a pr ofes s i onal capa ci tyand s om e of w hom w er e not . T he D i s tr i ctC our tw as corr ecti n concl udi ng t hat a ll o f W A T G ’s a c tio n s o r f

a ilu re s a lleg e d in th e u n d e rly in g c o m p lain ts f lo w e d d ire c tly fr om W A T G ’ s pr ofes s i onal r ol e as an ar chi t ect , and that , ther efor e, the pr ofes s i onal s e r v i c e s e x c l u s i o n i n b o th th e T r a v e l e r s a n d G u l f p o l i c i e s w o u l d a p p l y. 3 V I I . G enui ne I s s ues of M at eri al F act O n J anuary29, 2008, both W A T G and D efe ndant s fi l ed cr os s - m ot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent , i ndi cat i ng thatal l part i es bel i eved the mat t erw as r i pe fors uch a deci s i on. T he onl yal l eged ge nui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tar e di s cus s ed above : 1) evi dence i ndi cat ed thatther e w er e pot ent i al l ycover ed cl ai m s of negl i gence , nui s ance , and loss-o f c o n so rt ium all eg ed in the u n d erly ing co m p lai n ts; 2 ) no A ff idav it s o f M eritw ere fi l ed; 3) C I S for m s i ndi cat ed thatthe under l y i ng cl ai m s w er e notforpr ofes s i onal m al pr act i ce; and 4) the A notherTi m e c o m p lain t alle g e s lo ss o f b u sin e ss , w h ich is n o t a damage ar i s i ng fr om bodi l yi nj uryorpr opertydamage and ther efor e does notfal l under the pol i cyexcl us i on. A l l of thes e al l egat i ons ar i s e fr om W A T G ’ s r ol e pr ovi di ng pr ofes s i onal ar chi t ectur al s ervi ces and W A T G demonstr at es no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al13

f a c t a s to th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s le a d in g to a n yo f th e u n d e rl y in g a lle g a tio n s . F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill A F F IR M th e O rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt.