2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-16-2006 

# The Rege n t s v

. Republic F r a nk

lin

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 04-3653

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" The R e g e n ts v

. R e pub l ic F r a nk

l in " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 522. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/522H onor abl e D i cki ns on R

. D ebevoi s e, Seni or D i st r i ct * C our t J udge for t he D ist ri ct of N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 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. 04- 3653

TH E R EG EN TS OF TH E M ER CE RS BU RG CO LL EG E, Appe l l ant

v. RE PU BL I C F RANK LIN INS URAN CE CO MP AN Y

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D ist ri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 00- cv- 00558) D ist ri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F

. M cC lure, Jr.

A r gued J anuar y 9, 2006
B efor e: B A R R Y and A M B R O , C i r cui t J udges and D E B E V O I SE , D i s t r i ct J udge *2 ( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t 16, 2006)
M i chae l R

. L i bor , E s qui r e ( A r gued) C h ri sti n a E

. R o b erts, E sq u ir e D ere k E d d y , E sq u ir e M or gan, L ew i s & B ocki us 1701 M ar ket St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el for A ppel l ant St even J

. Pol ans ky , E s qui r e ( A r gued) M a rsh a ll, D e n n e h e y , W a rn e r, C o lem a n & G o g g in 2 0 0 L a k e D riv e E a ste W oodl and Fal l s C or por at e Par k, Sui t e 300 C her r y H i l l , N J 08002 C ouns el for A ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui t J udge Th i s i s an i ns ur anc e cov e r a ge di s pu t e ar i s i ng ou t of a l i ghtni ng s tr i ke and fi r e tha t da m a ge d Ke i l Ha l l on the c am pus of Merc er sburg A ca demy . We affirm in part and r ever se in partM e r c e r s b u r g c on t e n d s t h a t , wh i l e t h e d o r mi t o r y r o o ms 1 on t he four t h fl oor w er e unocc upi ed at t he t i m e of the fire due t o d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l me n t , t h e Aca d e my h a d p l a n s t o e x pand e n r o l l me n t a n d o n c e a g a i n u s e t h e f o u r t h f l o o r t o h o u s e f

u l l

- t i me and sum m er- program st ud ents
.3 th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.
I . Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBac k gr ound
M e r c e r s b u r g , th e i n s u r e d , i s a p r i v a t e s e c o n d ary a nd c ol l e ge pr e par a t ory b o ar di ng s c hool l oc a t e d i n Me r c e r s bur g, Pe nns ylv an i a . Ke i l Ha l l i s a bui l di ng l oc a t e d on the Me r c ersb u r g c am

pus tha t wa s c ons tr

uc t e d ove r

ac e nt ury a go. I t ha s four l e ve l s above gr ound and aba s e m e nt c ont a i ni ng m e c hani c a l e qui pm e nt
. The fi r s t fl oor of the bui l di ng c ont a i ns p ub lic s p a c e s , in clu d in g an au d ito riu m an dclassro o m s, w h ile th e s e c ond and thi r d fl oor s c ont a i n dorm i t ory hous i ng and c omm on m e e t i ng ar e a s . The fourth fl oor wa s d esig n e d and c ons tr uc t e d for dorm i t ory

us e a s we l l , and ha d be e n us e d for that pu rpose i n the past . At the ti m e of the fire, h o wever, that fl oo r wa s us e d a s a tt i c ands t or a ge s pa c e , andwa s c or do ne d o ff f ro m stu d en ts. 1 The c hi mne y

of Ke i l Ha l l wa s s tr

uck b y l i ghtni ng on Ju n e 1 3 , 1 9 9 8 , ig n itin g a f i r e th at cau sedex ten siv e d am ag e to the r oof and fourth fl oor of the bui l di ng, a s we l l a s s m oke and4 w ater d am ag e to th e f

irst, seco n d , an dth irdf

lo o rs. F o llo w in g th e f

ire, M ercersb u rg sub m itted a tim ely claim to its prop erty insurance c ar

ri er , Repub lic Frank li n Insurance Com pany , for ( 1) the c os t s t o r e pa i r

the a c t ua l fi r e dam a ge , ( 2) additi on al cost s t o repai r the bu il ding that were m ade nece ss ar y t o br i ng the bui l di ng i n co mp li anc e wi th a ppl i c abl e l aws and vari ou s building cod es , and (3) l ost busines s i ncom e. Repu blic Franklin’s prim ar y p olic y on ly prov ides co v erag e f

o r th o se rep airs n ecessary to retu rn th e p ro p erty to its pr e - fi r e c ondi t i on. Ac c or di ngl y , Me r c e r s bur g pur c ha s e d a se parate “Ordinance and Law En do rs em ent” to it s polic y . That E n d o rsem en t p ro v id es in relev an t p art: 1

. Cove r a ge A – Cove r a ge For Los s t o the Un dam a ge d P or

t i onof the Bu i l ding . I f a Co vere d C ause of

Lo ss occurs to covere d B u ild in g p ro p erty [ ,] . . . w e w ill p ay f o r l o s s to the undam a ge d port i on of the bui l di ng c aus e d by enfo rc em ent of any

ordinanc e o r law that : ( a) req u ires d em o litio n o f p arts o f th e sam e p ro p erty not da m a ge d by

aCove r e d Caus e of L o s s ; ( b) reg u lates th e co n stru ctio n o r rep air o f b u ild in g s, or es ta blis hes zon ing or land use requirem ents at the de s c r i be d pr e m i s e s ; an d (c ) i s i n for c e a t the tim e o f lo ss.

. . .5 3. Cove r a ge C – I nc r e a s e d Cos t of Cons tr

uc t i on C o v erag e. If a C o v ered C au se o f L o ss o ccu rs to c ove r e d Bui l di ng pr ope rty [, ] .

. . we wi l l pay for the i ncre as ed cost

to repair , r ebuild or constr uct the pr ope rty

c aus e d by

e nforcem e nt

of bui l di ng, z oni ng or

l and us e or di nanc e o r law . I f the prop erty is re pair ed or re bu il t, it

m ust be i ntended f o r s i m i l ar o c c u p an c y a s th e c u rr e n t p r o p e rty, u n less o th erw ise req u ired b y zo n in g o r lan du se or di nanc e or

l aw. The i ns ur e r ’ s fa i l ur e t o r e i m bur s e the Ac a de my

for a l l of it s c osts incurr ed as a r es ul t of the fire prom pted it to file a com plai nt in Un it ed Stat es Distri ct Co urt f or the M iddle Dis tr ic t of P en n s yl vani aa l l e gi ng br e a c h of c ontr a c t and ba d fa i th. Spe c i fi c a l l y , Me r c e r s bur g c o n tende d tha t the Or di nanc e and L aw E n d o rsem en t req u iredR ep ub lic F ran k lin to p ay f o r rep air and r e nova t i on c os t s r e qui r e d by the Am e r i c ans w ith Di s ab i l i t i e s A c t ( A D A ) , 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § § 1 2 1 0 1

- 1 2 2 1 3 , t he P en n sylv an ia H an d icap p edA ct an dU n iv ersal A ccessib ility St andar ds pr om

ul ga t e d the r e unde r , 71 Pa

. Cons

. St a t
. § 1455 et seq . ( 2000) & 34 Pa

. Code § 60. 1 et se q ., as well as other Pe nns yl vani as t a t

ut e s and n at i o n a l b u i l d i n g c o d e s ( i nc l udi ng the I nt e rna t i ona l Me c hani c a l Code , t h e B u i l d i n g O f

f i c i a l s and Code A d m in istrato rs In tern atio n al, In c. C o d e, th e N a t i o n al E lectric Code , the I nt e rna t i ona l Pl um bi ng Code and the s t andar ds of the Am e r i c a n Soc i e t y of H e a t i n g , R e f r i g e r a t i ng a nd A ir-C o n d itio n in g E n g in eers).M e rc e rsb u rg c o m p lete d a ll ren o v a tio n s a n d re p a ir s to 2 K e il H a ll in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 0 . A s o f th is a p p e a l, R e p u b lic Fr ankl i n has p ai d out $359, 696. 87 t o t he A cade m y . T he t ot al cos t of t he r epai r s and r enovat i ons w as $2, 449, 073. 85. T here i s no d i spute t hat t he p art i es have diver se 3 ci t i zens hi p and t he amount i n cont r over s y exceed s t he j ur i s di ct i onal r equi r ement
. T hus , t he D i s t r i ct C our t had s ubj ect m at t er j ur i s di c t i on pu r s ua nt t o 2 8 U. S. C. § 1 33 2. Bec a us e M e r c e r s b u r g a p p e a l s t h e f i n a l j u d g me n t o f

t h e Di s t r i c t Co u r t , we have j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291.

6 Af te r extensi ve fact

ual and expert

disc ov er y , the part ie s s e tt l e d, r e s ol vi ng a l l di s put e s e xc e pt thos e r elate d t o the Ordinance and Law En do rs em ent cla im

. Repu blic Franklin’s 2 m ot i on for s umm ary judgm e nt on thos e c l a i m s wa s gr ant e d by th e Di s tr i c t

Court
. I t

he l d tha t

( 1) the ADA di d not

a p p ly b ecau se th e d o r mi t o ry

sp ace in K eil H all w as n o t a “p ub lic a c c omm oda t i on” wi thi n the m e ani ng of that st a t ut e , ( 2) the P H A also d idn o t ap p ly

b ecau se th e co sts o f

th e f ire d am ag e d id n o t reach th e th resh o ld co st to trig g er co v erag e u n d er th e A ct, and (3 ) n a t i ona l l y

r e c ogni z e d s t andar ds of de s i gn and co n stru ctio n an dP en n sylv an ia law s th at req u ire p riv ate sch o o ls to m eet certain b asic saf

ety stan d ard s w ere in ap p licab le b ecau se the Bor ough of Me r c e r s bur g h ad n ot offi c i a l l y

a dopt e d any bui l di ng c ode

. Thi s a

ppe a l fol l owe d. 3
II I. Stan da rd of

Review7 Summ ary judgm e nt i s a ppr opr i a t e i f the r e ar e no ge nui ne is sues of m at er ia l fact pres ente d and the m ov ing par ty is enti tl ed to j u d g m en t as a m atter o f law

. F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c); Celote x Co r p . v. C a trett , 4 7 7 U

. S

. 3 1 7 , 3 2 2

- 2 3 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. A s f ar a s t he f o rm er, w e reso l v e all f

actu al d o ub ts an dd raw all reaso n ab le in f eren ces in f

av o r o f t h e n o n m o v in g p arty
. Hu gh v. Bu tler Count yFami l yY MCA , 418 F.3d26 5, 26 7 (3d Cir. 20 05 ). “W e ex ercise p len ary

rev iew o v er su mm ary

j u d g m en t an d w e ap p ly th e sam e stan d ardth at th e lo w er co u rt sh o u ldh av e ap p lied .” Farr e l l v . Plant e r

s Li f es av e r s Co. , 206 F.3d27 1 , 278 (3d C ir

. 20 00 ). The pr i m ary

l e ga l i s s ue he r e is th e i nt e r pr e t a t i on of the sco p e o f co v erag e o f th e O rd in an ce an dL a w E n d o rsem en t. “The inte rpre tati on of

the s co p e of cov er age of an insurance co n tract is a q u estio n o f law p ro p erly d ecid edb y

th e co u rt, a qu estio n o v er w h ich [ th is co u rt] ex ercise[ s] p len ary r e v i ew .” Me d. Pr ot e c t i v e Co. v. W at k i ns , 198 F.3d10 0, 10 3 (3dCir. 1 9 9 9 ); Mc

Mi l lan v . St

ate Mu t

. Li

f e As s uran c e Co

. of

Am

. , 922 F .2 d1 0 7 3 , 1 0 7 4 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 0 ). Wh ere, as h ere, f

ed eral j u risd ictio n is b asedo n d iv ersity o f citizen sh ip , w e ap p ly

t h e c h o i c e o f

law ru les o f

th e state in w h ich th e D istrict C o u rt sat. St. Pau l Fire & Ma ri ne Ins. Co . v . L ew is , 935 F. 2d 1428, 1431 n. 3 ( 3d Ci r . 1991) ( c i t i ng K la xon Co. v . St e ntor

El e c . Mf g. Co. , 31 3 U .S. 4 87 , 4 96 ( 19 41 ) )

. As n o te d, thi s a c t i on wa s fi l e d i n the Mi ddl e Di s tr i c t of Penn sylvania . Und er

Penn sy lvania

choice of

law rules , anW e not e t hat anot her l i ne o f P enns y l vani a ca s es hol ds 4 t hat choi ce of l aw i n an i ns ur ance cont r act i s to b e d eter m i ned by l ooki ng t o t he l aw of th e stat e w i t h t he most s i gni fi cant re la tio n s h ip w ith th e c o n tr a c t. See, e. g. , W i l son v. Transp. I

ns. C o. , 889 A

. 2d 563, 571 ( Pa. Super

. 2005)

. T he choi ce be t w een t hes e t es t s i s not det er m i nat i ve her e, as Penns y l vani a also h ad th e m o s t s ig n if

ic a n t r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e c o n tr a c t.

8 insurance c on tr ac t i s gov er ned b y the law of the st at e i n w hich th e c o n tract w as m ad e. Crawf ord v

. Manhat tan Li

f e I ns . Co. , 2 2 1 A .2 d8 7 7 , 8 8 0 (P a. S up er. 1 9 6 6 ); s e e al s o Mc Mi l lan , 922 F .2 dat 1 0 7 4

. “A n in su ran ce co n tract is ‘m ad e’ in th e state in

4 w h ich th e last act leg ally n ecessary

to b r i n g th e co n tract in to fo rc e t akes plac e. ” C

ra w f o rd , 221 A.2d at

88 0. Th e parti es ag ree th at th e in su ran ce co n tract w as ‘m ad e’ in P en n sylv an ia an d , co n seq u en tly , P en n sylv an ia sub stan tiv e law ap p lies.
We no w con si der i n turn ea ch of the Dis tr ic t Cou rt ’s g ro u n d s f o r g ran tin g s u mm ary

j u d g m en t in f

av o r o f R ep ub lic Fr ankl i n. II I. Meri ts A . A D A C la im
Merc er sb u rg as se rt s t

hat num er ou s a cc es sibili ty up grades m a de t o Ke i l Ha l l we r e r e qui r e d t o c om pl y wi th the di c t a t e s ofT itle I o f th e A D A p ro h ib its d iscrim in atio n in 5 em p lo y m en t a n d p ro v id es th at rig h ts an drem ed ies av ailab le un der Tit le VII of the Civil Righ ts Act of 19 64 ar e avail able as w ell u n d er T itle I o f

th e A D A

. Id . § 1 2 1 1 7 . T it l e II p ro h ib its disc ri m inat ion b y a “pu blic enti ty .” Id . § 1 2 1 3 2 . F in ally , T itle III— th e o n e th at ap p lies h ere— p r o h ib its d iscrim in atio n in “pub li c a cc omm od at ions.” Id . § 1 2 1 8 2

. The ADA’ s goa l s ar e fa m i l i ar : ( 1) t o pr ovi de ac l e ar and 6 c om pr e he ns i ve na t i ona l m an da t e for the e l i m i na t i on of d iscrim in atio n ag a in st in d iv idu als w ith d isab ilities; (2 ) to pr ovi de c l e ar , s tr ong , c ons i s t e nt , e nfor c e abl e s t andar ds ad d ressin g d iscrim in atio n ag ain st in d iv idu als w ith d isab ilities; (3 ) to en su re th at th e f

ed eral G o v ern m en t p lay s a cen tral ro le in en f o rcin g th e stan d ard s estab lish edo n b eh alf o f in d iv idu als with disa bili ti es ; and (4) t o inv ok e the swee p o f con gres si on al

9 Titl e I II of

the ADA and, thus, the cost s of tho se up grades ar e

5 covered und er

the Or di na

nc e or Law En do rs em ent. Th e Dis tr ic t Court r ul e d tha t the ADA pr ot e c t i ons a ffor de d di s abl e d pe r s ons do not a ppl y t o the dorm i t ory

s pa c e on the seco n d , th i r d and four t h f l o o r s o f K e i l H a l l b e c au s e d o rm i t o ry h o u s i n g i s not c on s i de r e d “ tr ans i e nt

l od gi ng ” that

i s c ov e r e d un de r the AD A. Ci t i ng 28 C. F. R. Part

36 Appe ndi x A, Me rcersb ur g r e s ponds that the ADA ’s re gu lati on s s peci fica ll y incl ud e dorm it orie s a s “tran sien t lo d g in g ,” an dh en ce th e Endor s e m e nt c ov ers th e co sts o f accessib ility

m o d if icatio n s req u iredb y

th e A D A

. U n d er T itle III o f

th e A D A , it is u n law f

u l f o r a p ub lic 6au th o rity , in clu d in g th e p o w e r to en f o rce th e F o u rteen th Am e ndm e nt

and t o r e gul a t e c omm e r c e , t o a d d r e s s the m a jor areas o f d is c r i min atio n f

acedd ay -to -d ay

b y p eo p le w ith disa bili ti es . 42 U .S.C. § 12 10 1(b). S p e c if ic a lly, 7 ( A ) an i nn, hot el , m ot el , or ot her pl ace of l odgi ng, exce pt for an es t abl i s hm ent l ocat ed w i t hi n a b u i l d i n g t ha t c o n t a i n s n o t mo r e t h a n f i v e r o o ms for r ent or hi r e and t hat i s act ual l y occupi ed by t he pr opr i et or of s uch es t abl i s hm ent as t he r es i dence of s uch pr opr i etor; ( B ) a r es t aur ant , bar , or ot her es t abl i s hm ent s er vi ng food or dr i nk; ( C ) a mot i on pi ct ur e hous e, t heat er , conce r t hal l , s t adi um , or ot her pl ace of exhi bi t i on or ent er t ai nm ent ; ( D ) an audi t or i um , convent i on cent er , l ect ur e hal l , or o t h e r p l a c e o f

p u b l i c g a t h e r i n g ; ( E ) a b a k e r y, gr ocer y s t or e, cl ot hi ng st or e, har dw ar e s t or e, s ho p p i ng cent er , or ot her s al es or r ent al estab li sh m e n t; (F ) a lau n d rom at, d ry -clean er, bank, bar ber s hop, beaut y s hop, t r avel servi ce, s hoe r epai r s er vi ce, funer al par l or , g as s t at i on, o f f i c e o f a n a c c o u n t a n t o r l a w ye r , p h a r m a c y, in surance off

i ce, professi on al off

i ce of a health 10 a c c omm odation t o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns t an i ndi vi dua l on the b asis o f d isab ility in th e f

u ll an d eq u al en

j o y m en t o f th e g o o d s, serv ices, f

acilities, p riv ileg es, ad v an tag es, o r acco mm o d atio n s. Id

. § 12182( a )

. “ Publ i c a c c omm oda t i on” i s de fi ne d i n t e rm s of 12 c a t e gor i e s , whi c h the l e g i s l at i v e h i s t ory i ndi c a t e s “ s houl d be 7car e pr ovi der , hos pi t al , or ot her s er vi ce es t abl i s hm ent ; ( G ) a t er m i nal , depot , or ot her st at i on us ed for s peci fi ed publ i c t r ans por t at i on; ( H ) a museum, l i br ar y , gal l er y , o r ot her pl ace of di s pl ay or col l ect i on; ( I ) a par k, zoo, amusement p a r k , o r o t h e r p l a c e o f

r e c r e a t i o n ; ( J ) a n u r s e r y, el e ment ar y , s econda r y , under gr aduat e, or po s t g r a d u a t e p r i v a t e s c h o o l , o r o t h e r p l a c e of educa t i on; ( K ) a day car e ce nt er , s eni or ci t i zen cent er , hom el es s s hel t er, food bank, adopt i on agenc y , o r o ther so cial se rvice cent er es t abl i s hm ent ; and ( L ) a gy m nas i um , heal t h s pa, bow li n g al l ey , gol f cour s e, or ot her pl ace of e x e rc is e o r r e c re a tio n . 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 1 8 1 (7).

11 constr ued liber al ly” t o af

f ord p eople with d is abil it ie s “ equal a c c e s s ” t o the wi de var i e ty of e s t abl i sh m e nt s ava i l abl e t o the nondi s abl e d. S. Re p. No. 101- 116, p. 59 ( 1989) ; H. R. Re p. No. 10 1- 48 5, pt
. 2, p. 10 0 ( 19 90 ) , U. S. Co de Co ng . & Adm i n. Ne ws 1 9 9 0 , p t. 2 , at p p . 3 0 3 , 3 8 2 -3 8 3 . T h e A D A o b lig ates a “p ub lic ac comm od at ion” on ly with re spec t to a “facil it y ” that is “ used a s , or de s i gne d or

c ons tr uc t e d for us e a s , ” e i the r

a p lace of p ub li c a c co mm o d atio n o r a co mm ercial f acility . 2 8 C .F .R . § 36. 102( b) ( 3) ( i )

- ( i i )

. W he n apubl i c a c c omm oda t i on or a part of i t i s a l t e r e d, the Ac t r e qu i r e s that a l t e r a t i on s be m a de so that

“ the a l t e r e d port i ons of the fa c i l i ty ar e r e a di l y a c c e s s i bl e t o and u sab le b y in d iv idu a ls w ith d isab ilities, in clu d in g in d iv idu als12 who us e whe e l c ha i r s . ” 42 U. S. C. § 12183( a )

. I f an a l t e r a t i on

c oul d a ffe c t

us abi l i ty of or a c c e s s t o an ar e aof the fa c i l i ty

c ont a i ni ng aprim ary

func t i on, the e nt i ty sha l l a l s o m ake the a l t e r a t i ons i n s uc h a m anne r tha t , t o the m a xi m

um e xt e nt fe a s i bl e , the pa th of tr ave l t o the a l t e r e d ar e a an d the ba thr o om s , t e l e phone s , and dr i nki ng fount a i ns serv in g th e altered area, are read ily accessib le to and u sa ble by individu al s with dis abil it ie s where s uc h a l t e r a t i ons . . . ar e not di s pr oport i ona t e t o the o v erall alteratio n s in term s o f co st an dsco p e . . . . Id . § 1 2 1 8 3 (a)(2 ). Gi ve n thi s l e ga l l and sc a pe , ou r ana l y s i s of

the AD A cl ai m proceeds a s a

t hr ee -part i nq uiry : whether (1) Mer ce rs bu rg Ac a de my i s a“ publ ic accomm oda t i on, ” ( 2) the r e pa i r s and ren o v atio n s m ad e to K eil H all a r e “alteratio n s,” an d(3 ) K eil H all i s a “ f

a cility” th at is “u sedas, o r d esig n edf o r u se as,” ei ther “a pl ac e o f p ub li c a cc omm od at ion” or “a comm er ci al faci li ty .” The Di s tr ict

Court he l d tha t Me r c e r s bur g s a t i s fi e d the

“ publ i c a c c omm oda t i on” r e qui r e m e nt and tha t i t s r e pa i r s and r e nova t i ons t o Ke i l Ha l l we r e “ a l t e r a t i ons ” wi thi n the m e ani ng o f th e A D A . E ach o f

th ese d eterm in atio n s is co rrect. Me r c e r s bur g i s a“ s e c ond ary s c hool , ” whi c h by

de fi ni t i on13 m ak es it a “p lace o f

edu catio n ,” an d , acco r d i n g ly , a “p ub lic ac comm od at io n ” u nd er

42 U.S.C. § 1 21 81 (7)( J) . Moreover, ex istin g reg u latio n s estab lish th at th e rep airs m ad e to K eil H all we r e “ a l ter a t i ons ” be c aus e the y i nc l ude d “ r e m ode l i ng, r e nova t i on, [or ] r e c ons tr

uc t i on . . . . ” 28 C. F. R. § 36. 402( b) ( 1) ( “ Al t e r a t i ons in clu d e , but ar e not l i m i t e d t o, r e m ode l i ng, r e nova t i on, r e habi l i t a t i on, r e co n s tr uc t i on, hi s t or i c r e s t or a t i on, c hange s o r r e arr ange m e nt i n s tr uc t ur a l part s or

e l e m e nt s , and c hange s or

r e arr ange m e nt

i n the pl an c onfi gur a t i on of wa l l s and fu ll -hei gh t par

ti ti on s. ”) . T hu s, the f

ir st two ste ps of

ou r three

s t e p i nqui ry

ar e e a s i l y

s a t i s fi e d. Th e thir d s te p i s m ar

kedly m ore diff

ic ult. T h e D is tr ic t Court fi r s t he l d tha t the four fl oor s of Ke i l Ha l l “ s houl d e a c h be e va l ua t e d s e par a tely as t o whe the r the y ar e c ove r e d unde r

the ADA, r a the r

than e va l ua t i ng Ke i l Ha l l a s whol e , ” t o de t e rm i ne whe the r the fl oor s ar e “ us e d a s , or de s i gne d or

c ons tr uc t e d for use a s, ” a

plac e of p ub li c a cc omm od at ion. Em p lo y in g that princi ple, the Cou rt

held that the fir st floo r of K ei l H al l was u sedas a “p ub lic acco mm o d atio n ” u n d er th e A D A b ecau se it co n tain edclassro o m s, se e 42 U. S. C. § 12181( 7) ( J ) ( apl a c e of edu catio n ), an d an au d ito riu m , se e id

. § 12181( 7) ( D) ( apl a c e of pu bl i c ga t heri ng ), bu t t

hat the se cond throug h f

ou rth f loors wer e n o t “p ub lic acco mm o d atio n s” b ecau se d o rm ito ries d o n o t f all w ith in an y

o f th e tw elv e categ o ries en u m eratedin 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 8 1 (7 ). A cco rd in g to th e C o u rt, d o rm ito ries are m o re ak in to re si dentia l units su c h a s apartm ents and con do m inium s—wh ic h are n o t co v ered b y th e A D A

—th an tran sien t lo d g in g lik e in n s,Ne i the r the Di s tr i c t Co ur t no r Re publ i c Fr ank li n w as 8 able to po int to any authority ho lding that do rm it orie s are m ore l i k e r e s i d e n t i a l f

a c i l i t i e s th an “ tr an s i e n t l o d g i n g ” f o r AD A p u rp o ses. In d eed , b o th th e C o u rt an d th e in su rer r e l y a l mo st e xc l us i ve l y

on a13- y e ar - ol d Di s tr i c t Court opi ni on tha t

i s not o n p o in t: Independent Hou si ng Serv ic es of Sa n F

rancis co v. Fill mo reCenter

Associates , 8 4 0 F . S up p . 1 3 2 8 (N .D . C al. 1 9 9 3 ). I n In dependent Hou si ng

Serv ic es , the Co urt a dd re ss ed w h et h er a r es identi al faci li ty was a pu blic ac comm od at ion. It was und is pu te d that the faci li ty had comm er ci al enti ti es oc c upyi ng the gr ound fl oor , whi c h fe l l wi thi n the purvi e w of the ADA ac ce ss ibil it

y st andards. B u t were the r es identi al a partm e nt s oc c up yi ng the upp e r fl oo r s s ub

je c t t o the AD A a c c e s s abi l i ty

s t andar ds ? The Cou rt e xam i ne d the l e gi s l a t i ve h isto ry o f th e A D A , an d co n clu d ed it w as n o t in ten d edto ap p ly to resid en tial f

acilities. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 8 2 co n c e rn s d iscrim in atio n in 14 ho te ls , and m otel s—wh ic h are covered und er § 1 21 81 (7)( A).
M ercersb u rg arg u es th at th e D istrict C o u rt erredb ecau se (1) pri vate -s choo l d o rmit o ri es ar e “ tr an si en t l o d g in g ” a s d ef in ed by the ADA r e gul a t i ons and ( 2) dorm i t or i e s ar e part of boar di ng sc ho ols, and, as su ch , are plac es of educat ion. We agre e. Al though the s t a t

ut ory de fi ni t i on of “ public ac c omm oda t i on” d o es n o t ex p ressly

m en tio n p riv ate sch o o l d o rm ito ries, th o se fa c i l i t i e s s a t i s fy

tha t de fi ni t i on unde r

c onve nt i ona l pr i nc i pl e s of i nt e r pr e t a t i on. 8publ i c a cc om m od a t i on s . Se c t i on12 18 1( 7) ( A) i ncl ude s “ an i nn, hot e l , m ot e l , or othe r pl a c e of lo d g in g ” w ith in th e d ef in itio n o f

p ub lic a c c omm oda t i ons . Howe ve r , the l e gi s l a t i ve hist ory of the AD A c la

ri fies that the “other

plac e o f lo d g in g ” d o es n o t in clu d e resid en tial f acilities. H .R . R ep . N o . 1 0 1 -4 8 5 (II), 1 0 1 st C o n g ., 2 dS ess. 3 8 3 (1 9 9 0 ). Id

. a t 1344 n. 14. It th en c onc l ude d tha t “ a partm e nt s and co n d o m in iu m s d o n o t co ns titu te p ub lic acco mm o d atio n s w ith in the m eaning of

the [AD A] .” Id . at 1 3 4 4

. In d ep en d en t H o u sin g S ervices do es li tt le to advance Repu blic Franklin’s ar gu m ent that pri vate sc ho ol do rm it orie s ar e not “transie nt lodg ing” un d er th e A DA . W e a gree that re si dentia l fac il it ie s such as apartm ents and con do m inium s are n o t tr an s i e n t l o d g i n g an d , th e r e f o r e , n o t s ub

j e c t t o AD A co m p lian ce. B u t w e b eliev e d o rm ito ry h o u sin g , w h ich is b y

its v ery n atu re tem

p o rary , is d if

f eren t. 15 T h e A D A ’s im

p lem en tin g reg u latio n s b elie R ep ub lic Fr a n k lin ’s co n ten tio n

— an dth e D istrict Cour t ’ s r ul i ng—t hat t he A D A d o es n o t ap p ly

to d o rm ito ries. S

ee B ra gd o n v. A b b o tt , 524 U. S. 624 , 6 4 6 ( 1998) ( c i t i ng Ch ev ron U .S.A., Inc. v. Na tural Res . Def

enseCo un se l, Inc. , 46 7 U.S. 83 7, 84 4 (19 84 ), and e xpl a i ni ng tha t the i m pl e m e nt i ng r e gul a t i ons and vi e ws of the Un i t e d S t a t e s De partm e nt of Jus t i c e ( DO J) a s t o the AD A ar e e ntitle d to deference ). Th e ADA Acces si bili ty Gu idel ines ( ADAAG) pr ovi de tha t

de s i gn, co n str

uc t i on, or a l t e r a t i on of fa c i l i t i e s i n c onform anc e wi th the ADA “ s ha l l c om pl y wi th the16 ap p licab l e p ro v isio n s o f

A p p en d ix A to th is p art (A D A A G ).” 28 C. F. R. § 3 5. 15 1. Ch a pt e r 9 o f A pp e nd i x A t o the AD AA G prov ides gu idel ines fo r “Acces si ble T ransie nt Lo dg ing,” which sp ecif ically in clu d es “H o tels, M o tels, In n s, B o ard in g H o u s es, Do rmitories , Re s ort s and Ot he r Si mi lar Plac es of

T rans i e nt Lodgi ng .” 28 C.F.R

. P art 36 A pp . A, Ch. 9.1 (em ph as es added). Moreover, Chapter 3 o f the AD AA G exp re ss ly st at es tha t tr ans i e nt l odgi ng i nc l ude s “ [a ] bui l di ng, fa c i l i ty , or port i on the r e of, e xc l udi ng i npa t i e nt m e di c a l c ar e f

a c i l i t i e s and resid en tial f

acilities, th at co n tain s sleep in g a cco mm o d atio n s. T r a n s i en t lo d g in g m ay

in clu d e, b u t is n o t lim itedto , reso rts, gr oup hom e s , hot e l s , m ot e l s , and do rmitories .” 28 C.F.R. Part 36 Ap p. A, Ch

. 3. 5 ( e m

ph a s i s a dd e d)

. I n a

nu t s he l l , the AD A r e g u l a t i o n s e x p r e s s l y

d e f i n e d o rm i t o r i e s a s tr an s i e n t l o d g i ng and p rovide that

any constr ucti on or al te rati on s t o d orm it orie s oc c ur r i ng a ft e r J anu ary 26 , 19 92 , m

us t c om pl y wi th the AD A an dits g u id elin es. 2 8 C .F .R . § 3 6 .4 0 2 (b ).
Be y ond the pl a i n l angua ge of the A D A i m pl e m e nt i ng re gu lati on s, ther e is an additi on al re as on to rule that it applie s to privat e- sc ho ol do r

m i t ori e s : s tudent ho using— an inte gral part o f b o ard i n g sch o o l ex p erien ce— is o n e o f th e f acilities, pr i vi l e ge s , a dvant a ge s , and a c c omm oda t i ons of apla c e of edu catio n co v eredb y

T i tle III o f

th e A D A . A s a p riv ate seco n d ary sch o o l, M ercersb u rg itself i s a “ p u b lic a c c omm oda t i on” tha t i s r e qui r e d t o c om pl y wi th the ADA. 42 U. S. C § 12181( 7) ( J )

. A s c hool m ay not di s c r i m i na t e on the b asis o f a stu d en t’s d isab ility n o r d en y

a reaso n ab leI n B r agdon v . A b b o tt , t he Supr eme C our t dr ew gui dance 9 fr om s e ve r a l of

t he D O J ’ s t e c hn i c a l a s s i s t a nc e l e t t e r s . 52 4 U. S.

17 a c c omm oda t i on t o adi s abl e d stu d ent
. On- c am pus hous i ng f acilities su ch as d o rm ito ries are certain ly p art o f th e “g o o d s, s e r vi c e s , fa c i l i t i e s , p r i v i l e g e s , a d v a n t a ge s , a nd acco mm o d atio n s” o f

f eredb y sch o o ls to its stu d en ts. 4 2 U .S .C § 1 2 1 8 2 ( a )

. T h u s , M e r c e r s b u r g c o u l dn o t l a w f u l l y d e n y a d isab ledstu d en t a reaso n ab le acc om m odat i on t

hat w o u ldp erm it him or her t o live i n its do rm it orie s. In d ee d , th e D OJ has consis te ntly

ta k en th e posit ion that a ll as pect s of a sc ho ol’s s t ude nt a c t i vi t i e s and of the e duc a t i ona l e xpe r i e nc e ( i nc l udi ng, fo r e xam ple, re se ar ch ac ti viti es and f rate rnity ho using) ar e co v eredb y

T itle III o f t h e A D A

. See D O J, “A m erican s w ith Disa bili ti es Act T ec h n ical Assi st ance Lett er s, ” Doc. # 48 8, at h ttp ://w w w .u sd o

j .g o v /crt/f

o ia/talin d ex .h tm

( May 2, 1994) ( s t a t i n g th a t

f r a t e rn i ty h o u s e s , o w n e dan do p e r a t e db y a un iver si ty , “ li ke al l o ther as pect s o f a un iver si ty experi ence , are p art o f th e p lace o f

edu catio n , an dare co v eredb y title III”); se e al s o DO J, “Am er ic an s w it h D is abil it ie s Act

Technical Assi s t ance Lett e r s , ” Doc. # 1 2 8 , a t h ttp ://w w w .u sd o

j .g o v /crt/f

o ia/talin d ex .h tm

( Jul y 8, 1992) (s tati ng that

re se ar ch ac ti viti es cond ucte d b y a univers it

y , e ven i f pr i m ar i l y for pharm a c e ut i c a l r e s e ar c h r a the r than e duc a t i on, are co v ered b y T itle III as p art o f th e u n iv ersity ’s o b lig atio n to e ns ur e “ c om

pl i anc e wi th [T]i t l e I I I i n a l l of the a c t i vi t i e s of the plac e of p u b li c ac comm od at ion that i t own s or operate s[, a ] p r o v i s i o n . . . i n t e n d e d t o b e r e a db r o a d l y ” )

. F o r th e s ame 96 2 4 , 6 4 6 (19 9 8 ). T he D O J fi l ed an am i cus br i ef i n an A D A cas e pendi ng 10 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D ist ri ct C our t for t he N or t her n D i s t r i ct of G eor gi a, B a rk e r v . E m o ry U n ive rs ity , No

. 0 2

- CV- 2 4 5 0

- CC. D O J , “U n ited S t a tes’ S u r-R ep ly B rief as A m icu s C u riae in O p po si ti on to Em ory

Un iver si ty ’s Mo ti on to Dism is s, ” at ht t p: / / w w w . ad a. gov/ br i efs / bar ker br

. pdf. T h e p la in tif f s , a stu d e n t a t th e E m o ry U n iv e rsity S c h o o l o f L a w a n d a d isa b ili ty r i ght s advoca cy gr oup, s ued Em or y cl ai m i ng t hat a num b er of fac i l i t i es on i t s campus a r e i nacc es s i bl e, i ncl udi ng a new s t udent a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x o w n e d a n d o p e r a t e d b y t h e U n i v e r s i t y. E m or y as ked t he C our t t o di s m i s s t he ca s e, ar gui ng t hat t he apar t m ent compl ex and ot her dor m i t or i es on cam p u s ar e not c o v e re d b y T itl e III o f th e A D A b e c a u se th e y a re “ stric tly re sid e n tial.” T h e G o v e rn m e n t d isa g re e d , u n e q u iv o c a lly a d v a n c in g th e p o sitio n th a t c a m p u s h o u sin g is co v e re d b y T itl e II I of t he A D A

. A ccordi ng t o the D O J, E m or y [w a] s obl i gat ed t o ens ur e t hat al l admi t t ed s t u d e n t s h a v e ‘ f

u l l a n d e q u a l e n

j o y me n t o f

t he go od s, ser vices , faci l i t i es, pri vil eges, adv antages, 18 reaso n s, th e D O J h as tak en th e p o sitio n th at stu d en t h o u sin g is co v ered b y T itle III o f

th e A D A

. See id ., “Unite d S tate s’ Brie f a s Am i c us Cur i a e i n Oppos i t i on t o Em ory Uni ve r s i ty ’ s Mot i on to D ism iss,” at h t

t p : / /www. a da

. gov/

br i e fs / barkopbr

. pdf

(stating th at “stu d en t h o u sin g o w n edan do p eratedb y a p riv ate u n i v e r s i ty i s c o v e r e db y [ T ] i t l e I I I o f th e A D A a s af

a c i l i ty, pr i vi l e ge , a dvant a ge , and/ or a c c omm oda t i on o f a pl a c e of educat ion”). In this context, we ho ld that the ADA applie s 10or accom m od at i on s’ th a t it provides .

. . T hese in c lu d e its re s id e n tia l h o u s in g p ro g ra m . Id

. at 2. T he D O J emphasi zed t hat “t he ca t egor ies o f pl ace s of publ i c ac comm odat i on [s houl d be r ead] broa d ly ” and “ s t udent hous i ng i s cover ed by t he A D A under t he br oad ca t egor y of a pl ace of educ at i on. ” Id

. at 5, 6.

. . . E m o ry a rg u e s th a t d o rm ito rie s a re o n ly cov ered by T i t l e II I i f t hey off er s ho rt -t erm st ay s, b eca us e dor m i t or i es ar e l i s t ed i n t he hea di ng of se c tio n 9 .1 o f

th e D e p a r tm e n t’ s A D A a c c e ss ib ili ty s t andar ds : “H ot el s , M ot el s , Inn s , B oar di ng H ous es , D o rm i t or i es , R es or t s and O t her Si m i l ar Pl ace s of Tra ns i ent L odgi ng. ” 28 C

. F

. R

. Pt

. 36 A p p . A § 9

. E m o ry ’s arg u m en t fail s, h o w ev er, beca us e Em or y has negl ect ed t o di s t i ngui s h t he issue o f w h ethe r an e n tity is co v ere d b y ti tl e III fr om t he subs equent i nqui r y about w hat s t andar ds ap p ly t o a par t i cul ar cover ed ent i t y . . . . T he D ep a rt m en t’ s p o sit ion that d o rm it o ri es a re cover ed as pl ace s of educ at i on i s not i ncons i s t ent w i t h t he fa ct t hat t he s t andar ds m ent i on dor m i t or i es as a t y pe of t r ans i ent l odg ing: t o t he c o n tr a ry, t he r ef

er ence t o dor m i t or i es i n t he standar ds i s a cl ear i ndi cat i on t hatcove r age of s uch f aci l i t i es w as anti cipa t ed by t he dr af t ers of t he r egul at i on . Id

. at 6- 7 ( emphasi s add ed ). M or eover , “[t ] he l engt h of a s t udent ’ s s t ay i n col l ege hous i ng i s i r r el evant beca us e st u d ent 19hous i ng i s cover ed by t he A D A under t he br oad ca t egor y of a pl ace of educ at i on. ” Al t h o u g h i t r u l e d t h a t t h e f i r s t f l o o r o f Kei l H al l w as 11 s ubj ect t o t he demands of t he A D A , t he D i s t r i ct C our t w ent on t o concl ude t hat R epub li c F rankl i n w as not l i abl e for t he r enovat i on cos t s on t hat fl oor , s t at i ng: B eca us e M er cer s bur g w as r equi r ed t o ens ur e t hat t he fi r s t fl oor compl i ed w i t h A D A pr i or t o t he fi r e, t he O r di nan c e or L aw [E]ndor s ement w as not t r i gger ed. A ccor di ngl y , R epubl i c i s not l i abl e for t he expe ns es r el at ed t o t he r epai r s m ad e t o t he f i r s t f l o o r a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e ADA. M er cer s bur g ar gues t hat t he Endors eme nt does not c o n t a i n a n y “ t r i g g e r ” r e q u i r e m e n t
. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e A c a d e m y, t he En d o r s e me n t p r o v i d e s c o v e r a g e f o r l o s s t o u n d a ma g ed por t i ons of t he bui l di ng caus ed by enf o rce m ent of anyl aw or or di nance r egul at i ng t he cons t r uct i on or r epai r of bui l di ngs t hat i s i n for ce at t he t i m e of t he l os s . T hus , i n M er cer s bur g’ s vi ew th e A D A

— a law in f

o rc e a t th e tim e o f

th e lo ss

— re q u ire d it t o pr ovi de “maxi m um acc es s abi l i t y ” t o t he di s abl ed w hen maki ng its a lte ra tio n s to K e il H a ll. W e di s agr ee. C over age A o f t he Endors ement w i l l pay fo r “ l oss t o t he undamaged por t i on of t he bui l di ng caus ed by enfor cement of anyor di nance or l aw t hat

. . . i s i n force at t he t i m e of l os s . ” (Em phas i s added. ) A l t hough “l os s ” i s not s peci fi cal l y defi ned in the pol i cy , i t pr ovi des t he “t r i gger ” t hat 20 t o pr i va t e - s c hool dorm i t or i e s and, the r e for e , t o a l l four fl oor s of K eil H all. 11R ep u b li c F ran k li n claim s. W h en v o lun tary rep airs are under t aken t o undamaged por t i ons of t he bui l di ng, t her e m aybe cost s i m po sed by enfo rcem ent of a l aw or ordi nan ce, bu t t ho se c o sts are not a “l oss. ” O nlyw hen som e act ual C ov ered C ause of Loss has caus ed dam age t o t he bui l di ng, t he r epai r of w hi ch m us t l egal l y be ac compani ed by change s t o t he un d amaged por t i on of t he bui l di ng, can t he l aw or or di nance be s ai d t o have caus ed a “ loss. ” Si m i l ar l y , C over age C of t he Endors ement re f e rs to “ th e in c re a se d c o st to re p a ir, reb u ild , o r c o n stru c t t he propert y ” (em ph asi s added ) onl y w hen a C ov ered C ause of L oss has occur r ed “t o cover ed B ui l di ng pr oper t y . ” Thi s phr as ing, w hi ch di rec tl y l i nks t he r ebui l t pr oper t y t o t he damaged pr oper t y , does not m ent i on vol unt ar y r econs t r uct ion of u n d a ma g e d p o r t i o n s a n d s h o u l d n o t b e t a k e n t o r e f e r t o t h e m. See A D A Pr eambl e t o R e g u l a t i o n o n Non d i s c r i mi nat i on 12 o n th e B a sis o f

D isa b ili ty b y P u b li c A c c o m m o d a tio n s a n d in C om m er ci al Faci l i t i es ( “Ti t l e I I I Pr eambl e”) , Pt

. 36, A pp. B , at 6 45 (“I n st ri king a ba l ance b et w een g uarant eei ng access to i nd i vidual s w i t h dis abil i t i es an d recog nizi ng t he legi t i m at e cost c o n c e r n s o f

b u s i n e s s e s a n d o t h e r p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s , t h e ADA e s t a b l i s h e s d i f

f e r e n t s t a n d a r d s f

o r e x i s t i n g f

a c i l i t i e s and new 21 In lig h t o f o u r d isag reem en t w ith th e D istrict C o u rt as to the a ppl i c abi l i ty

of the ADA t o dorm i t or i e s , one que s t i on r e m a i ns : whe the r

any pos t
- fi r e r en o v at i ons m a de t o the un dam a ge d p or

t i on s of Ke i l Ha l l we r e de m and e d by the AD A. The r e ar e two s t andar ds of c om pl i anc e unde r th e ADA: the new con struct ion sta n dard and the alt er at ion stand ar d. New co n stru ctio n is th e h i g h est stan d ard , an dit ap p lies to p ub lic 12co n str u cti o n . ”). T he ADA’ s barr i e r

r e m ova l pr ovi s i on r e qui r e s the 13 rem o v al o f

stru ctu ral b a rr i ers in ex istin g f acilities w h en it is “read ily ach iev ab le.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 8 2 (b )(2 )(A )(iv ). T h is is

22 a c c omm oda t i ons de s i gne d or c ons tr uc t e d a ft e r

J anuary 26, 1 9 9 2 , an d to th e p o rtio n o f a f acility alteredaf ter th at d ate. See 42 U. S. C. § 12183( a ) ; H. R. Re p. No

. 1 0 1 -4 85( I I I ) a t 60, r e pr i nt e d at 1 99 0 U .S.C.C.A.N. 445 , 483 (e xp la ining that “[ b ] ecau se it co sts f

ar less to in co rp o rate accessib le d esig n in to the pl anni ng and c ons tr uctio n of ne w bui l di ngs and of alteratio n s [ as co mp a r edto retro f ittin g ex istin g stru ctu res] , a hi ghe r s t andar d of ‘ r e a di l y a c c e s s i bl e t o and us abl e by ’ pe r s ons with disa bili ti es has b ee n ad op te d in the AD A f or new c ons tr uc t i on and a l t e r a t i ons ” ) ; and 28 C. F. R. P art 36, App. B, S e ctio n 3 6 .4 0 2 (statin g th at, w ith resp ect to alteredp o rtio n s, “[ t] h is p art does not r e qui r e al t e rat i ons ; i t s i mpl ypr ov i des t

hat whe n al t era tio n s ar e unde r tak e n, t he ymus t be made i n a m a n n er th a t p ro vi de s a ccess ”) (e m ph as is added); see a lso Brother v . CPT

Invest ments, Inc. , 317 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1370 (S.D. Fla . 200 4) (s tati ng that the ADA do es n ot re qu ir e alteratio n s). T h e n ew co n stru ctio n sta n d ard s are co n tain edin 28 C.F.R. Part

36 , and , a s dis cuss ed abov e, the ADA AG ar e s et f o rth in A p p en d ix A o f

P art 3 6

. Exi s t i ng fa c i l i t i e s al s o m

us t c om pl y wi th the ADA, but tha t obl i ga t i on i s gove rne d by the b arr i e r

r e m ova l pr ovi s i on. 13s o whe n i t i s “ e a s i l y

a c co mp lish ed and abl e t o be c arr i e d out withou t m

uch d iffi cu lt

y or expense.” Id . § 12 18 1(9). Co m pliance with the AD A’s bar ri er re m ov al prov is ion m ay req u ire, f o r ex am p le, th e in stallatio n o f

a c o n c r e t e ram

p , a w id en edex terio r d o o r, o r th e m o d if icatio n o f an ex istin g p ub lic r estro o m . 2 8 C .F .R . § 3 6 .3 0 4 (b ). Wh ere th o se p ub lic a c c omm oda t i ons c an de m ons tr a t e th at b arr i e r r e m ova l i s not
“ r e a di l y a c hi e vabl e , ” the y

m us t try othe r m e thods tha t

ar e . 28 C.F.R. § 3 6.30 5(a)

. In r el evan t part , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 1 21 83 (a) provides: 14 [D ] i s cr i m i nat i on for pur pos es of s ect i on 12182( a) o f th is title in c lu d e s . . .

(2 ) w ith re sp e c t to a f

a c ili ty o r p a rt th e re o f

th a t is al t er ed by , on behal f of, or for t he us e of a n e sta b lish m e n t in a m a n n e r th a t af f e c ts o r c o u ld aff ect t he us abi l i t y of t he fa ci l i t y or par t t her eof, a fa i l ur e t o m ake a l t er at ion s i n s uch a manner t hat , t o t he maxi m um ext ent fea s i bl e, t he al tere d p o rtio n s o f

th e f a c ili ty a re re a d ilya c c e ss ib le to and usable by i nd i vidual s w i t h d i sabi l i t i es, i ncludi ng i nd i vidual s w h o use w heelchai rs . W her e t he ent i t y i s under t aki ng an al t er at i on t hat aff ect s or coul d aff

ect us abi l i t y of or acce s s t o an 23 O f co u rse, if ex istin g f

acilities are altered , th ey

m u st co n f o rm to th e alteratio n stan d ard , w h ich req u ires th a t alteratio n s, as w ell as th e p a th of tr ave l t o “ pr i m ary func t i on” ar e a s , be m a de read ily accessib le to d isab ledin d iv idu als. 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 1 8 3 (a)(2 ). “A reas co n tain in g p rim ary f u n ctio n s ref

er to 14ar ea of t he fac i l i t y cont ai ni ng a pr i m ar y funct i on, t he ent i t y s hal l al s o m ake t he al t er at i ons i n s uch a m anner t hat , t o t he m axi m um ext ent fea s i bl e, t he pat h of tr av el t o t he al t er ed ar ea a nd t he bat hr oom s , t el ephones , and dr i nki ng fount ai ns se rv in g th e a lter e d a re a , are re a d ilya c c e ss ib le to an d u sab le b y ind ividu als w it h d isab il it ies w h ere s uch al t er at i ons t o t he p at h of t r avel or t he bat hr oom s , t el ephones , and dr i nki ng fount ai ns se rv in g th e a ltere d a re a a re n o t d isp ro p o rtio n a te to t he over al l al t er at i ons in t er m s of cos t and s cope ( as det er m i ned under cr i t er i a est abl i s hed by t he A tt o rne y G en era l)

.

24 those porti on s of a plac e of p ub li c a cc omm od at ion w here s i gni fi c ant

goods , s e rvi c e s , fa c i l i t i e s , pr i vi l e ge s , a dvant a ge s or acco mm o d atio n s are p ro v id ed .” H . R ep . N o . 4 8 5 , 1 0 1 st C o n g ., 2 dS ess., p t. 2 , at 1 1 2 (1 9 9 0 ), r e pr i nt e d i n 19 90 U. S. C. C. A. N. 4 4 5 , 4 8 6 . A s a p ractical ex am p le, “th e p a th o f

trav el to

. . . b ath ro o m s, telep h o n es, an dd rin k i n g f o u n tain s [ m

u st b e]

. . . read ily access i b l e t o an du s ab l e b y i n d i v i du a l s w i th d i s ab i l i t ies.” Id

. a t 394. As our

Court ha s obs e rve d,

w h ile C o n g ress ch o se n o t to m an d ate f u ll ac ce ss ibil it

y to exis ti ng faci li ti es , it re qu ir ed that sub seq u en t ch an g es to a f acility b e u n d ertak en in a non -dis cr im inat ory

m anner. Th e u se of

such c hange s m

us t be m a de ava i l ab le t o a l l

. The25 em p h asis o n eq u al treatm en t is f u rth ered , as w ell, by an e xpans i ve , rem edi a l c ons tr uc t i on of the te rm “u sab ility .” U sab ility

sh o u ldb e b ro ad ly de fi ne d t o i nc l ude r e nova t i o n s w hi c h a ffe c t the use of a facil it

y , and no t simp ly

changes which relate d irectly

to access. K in n ey v. Y

e r u s a l im , 9 F .3 d1 0 6 7 , 1 9 7 3 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 3 ). It is c l e ar , the n, tha t

t o the e xte nt

the ADA—al aw i n for c e a t the tim e o f th e f ire—reg u latedth e alteratio n s to K eil H all (a p ub lic acco mm o d atio n ) af

ter th e f ire an dreq u iredth e A cad emy to m ake paths and travel acce ss ible to the p ri m ar y -fun ct ion are as on ea ch floo r o f Keil Hall , the plai n lang uage of the Ordinance and Law Endor s e m e nt

c o v e r s M e r c e r s b ur g ’ s c o s t s o f c o m pl yi ng w ith th e A D A

. With thi s ba c kdr op, we part wi th the Di s tr i c t

Court in two r e s pe c t s . Fi r s t , be c aus e dorm i t or i e s ar e “ tr ans i e nt l odgi ng” and Me r c e r s bur g i s a“ pl a c e of e duc a t i on, ” we c onc l ude tha t the d o rm ito ry f lo o rs o f K eil H all are p ub lic acco mm o d atio n s w ith in th e m e an i n g o f

th e A D A

. S e c o n d , b e c au s e th e E n d or s e m e nt re qu ir es the i nsurer

to cover a lt er at ions to the und am aged po rt i on s of

Ke i l Ha l l c aus e d b y

e nf or c em e nt of the AD A, Re publ i c Fr ankl i n m ay b e liabl e for c e rt a i n e xpe ns e s not d ire c t l y cau sedb y

th e f ire. O f co u rse, an y

alteratio n s, r e nov atio n s an d/o r im

p ro v em en ts m ad e to an y

f lo o r o f K eil H all that we r e no t

m and a t e d b y

the AD A ( i. e. , dis cr et ionary a l t e r a t i o n s ) d o n o t f

a l l w i th i n th e s c o p e o f c o v e r a g e o f t he26 En do rs em ent, and, as a r es u lt, do n ot ob li gate the i nsurer . G iv en th at th e A D A ap p lies to all f o u r f lo o rs o f K eil H all, it is fo r the Distri ct Co urt to dete rm ine on re m and speci fica ll y wh ic h r e nova t i ons ( i f any) unde rt ake n by Me r c e r s bur g i n i t s r e pa i r of K eil H all w ere m an d atedb y th e A D A

— an issu e th e C o u rt d id n o t reach in its m e mo r a n d u m o p in io n . T h eref

o re, w e rev erse the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s gr ant

of s umm ary

ju d g m e nt

i n fa vor of Re publ i c Fr ankl i n on M e r c e r s bur g’ s ADA c l a i m and r e m and th e case f o r p ro ceed in g s n o t in co n sisten t w ith th is an aly sis.
B . P H A C la im
Me r c e r s bur g a l s o c ont e nds tha t , m uc h l i ke the ADA, the Uni ve r s a l Ac c e s s i bi l i ty

St andar ds pr o mul ga t e d unde r the P en n sylv an ia H an d icap p edA ct (P H A ), 7 1 P a. C o n s. S tat. § 1455. 1 et se q . ( 2000) ; 34 Pa

. Code § 60. 1 et se q . , r e qui r e d the ac ce ss abil it

y up grades , including the i nsta ll at ion o f an ele vator, t o Ke i l Ha l l

. The Di s tr i c t Court he l d tha t the PHA d id n ot re qu ir e m od ific at ions to Keil Hall beca use the re pair s r equire d b y th e f ire to tal less th an 3 0 % o f th e b u ild in g ’s v alu e. T h e P H A req u ires th at certain stru ctu ral im p r o v e men ts b e m ad e to m ax im ize accessib ility an du sab ility b y p erso n s w ith phy s i c a l h an d i c a

p s . 7 1 P a . C o n s . S t a t
. § 1 4 5 5

. 1

. U n l i k e t he ADA, the PHA ge ne r a l l y a ppl i e s t o “ bui l di ngs us e d by the p u b lic” rath er th an to c e r t a i n e num erated “p u b lic ac comm od at ions.” Id

. § 1 45 5. 1b

. Mo re ov e r , the PH A expres sl y applie s t o “sc ho ols” and “do rm it orie s. ” Id

.27 Unde r i t , whe n an e xi s t i ng pr i va t e bui l di ng i s r e m ode l e d, the r em od el ing m

ust be do ne to ensure that the re m od el ed ar ea is “accessib le to an du sab le b y p erso n s w ith p h y sical h an d icap s” to a d eg ree b asedo n th e p ro p o rtio n al co st o f th e rem o d elin g to t h e o v erall w o rth o f

th e b u ild in g . Id

. § 1 4 5 5

. 1 c ( b ) ( 1 )

. I f t he c ons tr uc t i on c os t

o f th e re m ode l i ng i s l e s s than 30% of the va l ue of the bui l di ng, onl y the r e m ode l e d ar e aor

ar e a s s ha l l be m ade a cc es si ble t o and usable b y pers on s with p hy si ca l hand ic aps. An ac ce ss ible route t o the re m od el ed ar ea or ar ea s is n o t req u ired

. Id . § 1 4 5 5 .1 c(b )(1 )(i). If “th e co n stru ctio n co st of the r em od el ing is gre at er or equal t o 30 p er ce nt bu t l es s than 50 pe r c e nt

of the w o rth of the bui l di ng, the r e m ode l e d ar e aor areas sh all b e m ad e accessib le to an du sab le b y p e r so n s w ith ph y si ca l h an d icaps, and an acce ss ible route t o the re m od el ed ar ea or ar ea s shall be prov ided.” Id

. § 1455. 1c ( b) ( 1) ( i i )

. I f the c ons tr uct i on c os t

i s 50 pe r c e nt

or m or e of the va l ue of the bui l di ng, the e nt i r e bui l di ng m us t be m a de a c c e s s i bl e t o and u sab le b y h an d icap p edp erso n s. Id

. § 1 4 5 5

. 1 c ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i i i )

. For pu rposes of

the latte r two subsec ti on s, constr ucti on m ade over a th ree-y ear p erio d m ay b e calcu latedas th e co n stru ctio n co st. Id . § 1 4 5 5 .1 c(b )(1 )(iv ). Th e s am e ana l y

t i c a l fr am e wo rk a

pp l ic abl e t o the AD A cl ai m , dis cuss ed abov e, nece ss ar ily applie s t o M er ce rs bu rg’s PH A cla im . Sim

ply st at ed, the li gh tning str ike only da maged ce rt ai n p orti on s of K eil Hal l; wh en those porti on s wer e r e m od e l e d, Me r c e r s bu r g w a s r e qu i r e d t o c om pl y wi th the PH A; Repu blic Franklin, i n turn , was obligat ed to pay fo r that28 r e m ode l i ng ( whi c h i t ha s done ) ; i t wa s onl y obl i ga t e d t o pay

for fu rther r em od el ing t o u n d am aged po rt ions of Keil Hall if that rem o d elin g w as req u iredb y an o rd in an ce o r law

. The q u estion, the n, i s whe the r the PHA r e qui r e d any fu rther r em od el ing. A s ex plai ned abo ve, the answer t o that i nqui ry de pe nds on afa c t

ua l de t e rm i na t ion and the c os t of r e m o d e l i n g c o mp ar e dt o th e w o rth o f K e i l H a l l

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, if th e rep airs req u iredb y

th e f ire t o t a l l e ss th an 3 0 % o f K eil Ha l l ’ s t ot a l va l ue , the PHA r e qui r e s no furthe r m odi fi c a t i ons an d it fo ll ow s that Repub li c Frank li n is not ob li gate d to cov er the c ost of any

fu rther m od ific at ions. The conv er se is al so tr ue: if th e rep airs req u iredb y

th e f ire to tal ex ceed 3 0 % o f

K eil Ha l l ’ s t ot a l va l ue , the n the PHA de m ands furthe r m odi fi c a t i ons and i t fol l ows tha t

Re publ i c Fr ankl i n m

us t c ove r a l l or s om e of the port i on of the c os t of thos e m odi fi c a t i ons unde r the O rd in an ce an dL aw E n d o rsem en t.
B o th sid es ag ree th at th e to tal v alu e o f K eil H all is $1, 900, 000. Mor e over, d ur i ng or a l ar gum e nt , c ouns e l for M ercersb u rg ag reedth at th e ag g re g ate co st o f rep air to K eil Ha l l c aus e d by the fi r e t ot a l s s ubs t ant i a l l y l e s s than 30% of the t ot a l va l ue of th e b u i l di ng. As ar e s ul t , the PHA r e qui r e d no furthe r m odi fi c a t i ons t o Ke i l Ha l l

. Ac c or di ngl y , we a ffi rm the Di s tr i c t Court ’ s gr ant

of s umm ary

judgm e nt in fa vor

of R e p ub l i c F r an k l i n o n th e P H A c l a i m.29 C. Bu il ding Co des Fi na l l y , Me r c e r s bur g c ont e nds tha t the Or di nanc e and L aw E n d o rsem en t p ro v id es co v erag e f o r ren o v atio n s it m ad e to undam a ge d port i ons of Ke i l Ha l l pur s uant t o, in ter a lia , the I nt e rna t i ona l M ec hani c a l Code , Bui l di ng Offi c i a l s and Code A dm i ni s tr a t or s I nt e rna t i ona l , I nc . Code , the Na t i ona l El e ctric Code , the I nt e rna t i ona l Pl um bi ng Code , and the s t andar ds of the Am erican So ci ety

of Heat ing, Refriger at ion and AirCondi t i oni ng Engi ne e r s . I t i s undi s put e d th at th e Bor ough of Merc er sburg, in wh ic h the Acad emy is locate d, has a do pted none of the for e goi ng c ode s nor any othe r bui l di ng c ode s. Re l yi ng onthat

fa c t , the Di s tr i c t Co ur

t he l d that the t e rm s “ l aw” an d“o rd in an ce” in t h e E n d o rsem en t sh o u ldb e af f o rd edth eir o r d i n ary me an i n g . A s s u c h , i t

r e f u s e dt o c o n s tr

u e th o s e t e rms to in clu d e b u ild in g co d es o r stan d ard s ad o p tedb y p riv ate or gani z a t i ons but not a dopt e d by agove rnm e nt a l body

havi ng authority to do so here

. Th e bas ic princi ples of

law g ov er

ning in su rance polic y in terp retatio n are w e ll-settledin P en n sylv an ia. E. Associ ated Co a l Cor p. v . Ae t na Cas

. & Sure t

yCo. , 6 3 2 F

. 2 d1 0 6 8 , 1 0 75 ( 3 dC i r . 1 9 8 0 )

. T h e g o a l o f i n t e r p r e t i n g an i n s u r an c e p o l i c y, l i ke the goa l of i nt e r

pr e t i ng any

othe r c ontr a c t , i s t o de t e rm i ne the i nt e nt of the part i e s . I t

be gi ns whe r e i t

m us t —the l angua ge o f th e p o licy

. Madi

s on Cons tr . Co. , 73 5 A .2d a t 106 ( “ The po le st ar of ou r i n q uiry

. . . i s the lang uage of

the i nsurance po li cy .” ).30 T h e tasko f

in terp retin g [ an in su ran ce] co n tract is g e n e r a l l y p e r f

o rm e db y ac o u r t

r a th e r th an b y a j u ry . T h e g o al o f

th at taskis, o f

co u rse, to a s c e rt a i n the i nt e nt

of the part i e s a s m ani fe s t e d by the langu age o f the w ri tt en instrum ent. Wher e a prov is ion o f a polic y

is am bigu ou s, the polic y p r o v i s i o n i s t o b e c o n s tr u e d i n f av o r of t he i ns ur e d and a ga i ns t the i ns ur e r , the dr a ft e r of the a gr e e m e nt
. W he r e , howe ve r , the l angua ge of the co n tract is clearan du n am b ig u o u s, a co u rt is re qu ir ed to give effect t o that l angu age. Gene & Ha rv eyBu il

ders v. Pa . Mfr

s. Ass’n , 517 A. 2d 910, 913 ( Pa

. 1986) ( quot i ng Sta n d a rd V en etia n B lin d Co . v. A m . Em p ire I ns . Co. , 469 A. 2 d 563, 566 ( Pa

. 1983) ) ( a ddi t i ona l c i t a t i ons o m itted ). C o n tractu al lan g u ag e is am b ig u o u s “if

it is reaso n ab ly s us c e pt i bl e of di ffe r e nt

c ons tr uc t i ons and c a

pabl e of be i ng un ders tood in m ore than o ne se nse. ” Hutc h i s on v . Sunbe am Coa l Co. , 5 1 9 A .2 d3 8 5 , 3 9 0 (P a. S up er. C t. 1 9 8 6 ); see a lso Madi s on Cons tr . Co. v . Ha r l e y s v i l l e Mut

. I

ns . Co. , 735 A. 2d 100, 106 ( Pa

. 1999)

. Court s s houl d not , ho w ev e r , di s t ort the m ean in g o f

th e lan g u ag e o r strain to f in dan am b ig u ity

. Steu a rt v. McCh es ney , 4 4 4 A .2 d6 5 9 , 6 6 3 (P a. S up er. C t. 1 9 8 2 ).
Merc e r s bu r g a s ks us t o r

ul e that the pl a i n andor di nary m ean in g o f

“law ” an d“o rd in an ce” in th e E n d o rsem en t is31 b r oade r t h a n t h e i n t e rp r e t a t i o n g i v e n b y t h e Di s t r i c t Co u r t
. We need not r eac h t hi s i s s ue. Thi s i s b ec au se, even i f t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d r ead thos e t er ms t oo nar r ow l y , t hatdet er mi nat i on does n o t re so lv e th e lar g e r c o n tro v e rsy b e fo re u s: w h e th e r th e “ lo ss to undamage d por t i on[s ] ” of K ei l H al l w as “caus ed by enf or ceme nt of any ” of t he code s . T hi s i nqui r y mustbe ans w er ed no. U nl i ke t he A D A and PH A , M er cer s bur g f ai l s t o poi nt out any pr ovi s i ons of t he bui l di ng codes t hatmandat ed orr equi r ed i t t o do any u p g rad es, re n o v ati o n s, e tc ., to th e u n d a m a g e d p o rtio n s o f K e il H a ll. C e rta in ly, M e rc e rsb u rg ’s d isc re tio n a ry dec isio n to re n o v a te undamage d por t i ons of K ei l H al l t r i gger ed t he appl i cat i on of t he b u ild in g c o d e s a s to th a t re n o v a tio n , b u t cr iti c a llyim p o r ta n t is t hat the b uil d ing co des t hem sel ves did no t t ri gg er tho se r enovat i ons . T hi s di s t i ngu ishes M er cer s bur g’ s bui l di ng codes cl ai ms f r om i t s A D A and PH A cl ai ms. A s a r es ul t , w e af f i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det er mi nat i on (al bei t on di f f er entgr ounds t han t he D i s t r i ctC our t ) t hatt he O r di nance and L aw E ndor s ementdoes not prov ide cove r age f or r enovat i ons i tmade t o undamage d por t i ons of K ei l H al l i n hy pot het i cal compl i ance w i t h codes not man dati ng t ho se r eno vati on s. VI . Concl us i on We r ever s e t he Di s t r i ct Cour t ’ s s ummar y judgme nt r ul i ng di s mi s s i ng M er cer s bur g’ s AD A cl ai m and re mand t hat cl ai m f or p roce edings no t i nco nsi st ent w i t h t his op i nion, bu t aff i rm its
s ummar y judgme nt r ul i ngs d ismi s s i ng M er cer s bur g’ s PHA and bu i l ding cod es cl ai ms.