2003 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
11-7-2003 

# C h a ms J ewelr y Ar t v

. H a ef ne r 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 . 02-2911

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C h a m s J ewe lr y Ar t v

. H a ef ne r " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 128. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/128NOT PRE CEDENT IAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No: 02-2911

___________ CHAM'S JEWELRY ART; FASHI ON GEM JE WELRY,

t/a Yang Company GEMS AND JEWELRY PALACE, INC.

v. R IC H A R D C . H A EF N ER , In di vi du all y; RICHARD C. HAEFNER,

t/a Lost D utchma n Ge mbo r,

a/k/a 10th Annual Lost Dutc hman Gemboree; LE BA NO N V AL LE Y E XP OS ITI ON , CO RP ., a/k/a Le ban on V alley E xpo . Co rp.; LE ST ER F. R IT TL E, In di vi du all y; LESTER F. RITTLE,

t/a Lebanon County Auxil laryPolice; LEBANON COUNTY AUXILLARY POLI CE
Fas hio n G em and Jew elry, In c.; Gems and Jewelry Palace, Inc. Ap pellan ts

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE MID DL E D ISTR ICT O F PE NN SY LV AN IA2 (CivilAction No. 97-cv- 00612) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Yvette Kane

___________ Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

on November 7, 2003 Be for e: M cK EE , SM ITH , and GR EE NB ER G, Circuit Judges , (Fil ed: November 7, 2003)

___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ SM ITH , Circuit

Judge I. Plaintiffs are three New Y ork corpor ations which are vendor s of gemstones and jewelry . Each rented space and sol d their wares at t

he Tenth Annual Lost Dutc hman Gemb oree (“Gembo ree”) in Lebanon, Pennsylvania on August 14-18, 1996. On A ugust 16, 1996, a

porti on of plai ntiff

s’ inve ntorywas stole n. On the eveni ng that t he theft occurred, the organi zer of the Gemboree, defendant Richard Haefner ( “Haefner”) was certain that

the windows and doors to the exposi tion ce nter were c losed and l ocked, because t wo employees of Lester Ri ttl e’s (“ Rittl e”) security company had chec ked the buildi ng. Haefner had hi red Rittle al ong with the Lebanon County Auxil iaryPolice (“Poli ce”) t o provide s ecurit y at the event . One indi vidual hired by Rittl e provided3

securi ty during t

he night of

August 16, 1996. Prior to renti ng space for t he Gemboree, plai ntiff

s each si gned an “Applicat ion for Dealer Space. ” App. at S. A. 92a. The appl ication included the fol lowing clause: LIABILITY. Neither management nor Lebanon Fair Grounds, nor any of their of ficers, a gents , emp loyees, or o ther rep resen tatives sh all be h eld acco untab le or liab le for a nd th e sam e here by release s from acco untab ility or li abili ty for anydamage, los s, harm or injury t o the pers on or any property of t

he dealer , or any

of dealer ’s offi cers, agents, employe es or other represent ative s resul ting from theft, fire, water, a ccident or any other caus e, and neithe r man agem ent no r Leb anon Fair G roun ds w ill obtain insurance a gainst such d amag e, loss, harm or injury. Dea ler agrees to carry liabil ityinsurance as a condition for parti cipating in the show. The license herein gr anted i s revocabl e at anytime bymanagement in the event a dea ler shallviolate this agreement. Dealer furt her agree s to i ndemnify , defend and protect management agains t and hold and save management harmless fr om any and a ll cl aims, de mands, sui ts, liabi lit y, damages, l oss, c osts, attorney fees and expense s of whatever ki nd which might occur , inc luding but not limi ted to c laims of damages or los s to Lebanon Fai r Grounds property , or out of anydamage, los s, harm, or inj ury to the pe rson or any property of t

he dealer or any of his offi cers, agents, employees or representatives. App. at S.A. 93a. The A pplication al so provided for securityarrangements: SE CU RIT Y. M ana gem ent w ill pro vid e se cur ity serv ice 2 4 ho urs a day. Security wil l be in e ffect during the e ntire show and will ce ase at 8 pm on closi ng day. Dealer agr ees to hol d management and Lebanon Fair Grounds harmless for anyloss, pilfe ring, theft or damage to deal er’s mer chandise or other pr opertyfrom all causes whats oever. Deal er agree s to provi de adequate i nsurance for

his own merchandis e and other property; and agrees that fail ure to have such insurance constitutes a waiver of any claim against managem ent or Lebanon Fair Groun ds. Id . Plai ntiff

s procure d no insurance agains t thef t or l oss. Addit

ionall y, the Applic ation for Dealer Spac e quali fied the acceptance of space, with the f ollowing cl ause: ACC EPTAN CE OF APPLICA TION FO R BO OTH SPACE . This c ontract4

shallnot become effective unle ss one copyof the appl ication is signed by both the de aler and m anagem ent, and the ap propriate dep osit is paid. There are no agree men ts, written or ora l, by or betw een th e partie s perta ining to this contrac t, e xcept those contai ned herei n. Id
. Subsequent t o the the ft, pl ainti ffs sought recovery

from Haefner. Haefner file d
cross c laims a gains t defe ndan ts, Leb anon Va lley Exp osition Co rpora tion, as w ell as R ittle and the Poli ce. The Dist rict Court granted summary j udgment agains t plai ntiff s on March 30, 20 01. T he D istrict Co urt dete rmine d that th e partie s we re bo und by the term s of th eir
wr itten agr eem ent, w hich by its te rms pre clud ed a ny fin din g of liabi lity aga inst H aef ner . Judgm ent wa s entered ag ainst plaintiffs the sam e day. Plaintiffs Fashion Gem Jewelry and G ems and J ew elry Palac e filed a time ly notice o f app eal. II. The Distri ct Court ha d divers ity juri sdiction under 28 U.S. C. § 1332. We have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S .C. § 129 1. We exercise plen ary review ov er a District Co urt’s
sum ma ry judg me nt d eterm inati ons . Woodside v. Sc hool Dist rict of Philadelphia Bd. of Education , 248 F.3d 129, 130 (3d Cir. 200 1); Sharrar v. Felsing , 128 F.3d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 19 97). S um mary jud gm ent is ap prop riate “if th e plea ding s, dep osition s, answ ers to interrogatories, and ad missions on file, together with the a ffidavits, if any, show th at there is no genui ne issueas to anymateri al fact and that the moving party is entitl ed to a judgment as a

matter of law.” Celo tex C orp. v . Catre tt , 4 77 U. S. 317 , 3 21 ( 198 6) ; F ed. R. Civ . Pro c. 56 (c).5 III. The questi on before us i s simpl y whether the language of the Deale r Space Applications i s bindi ng upon the part ies. As plaintiffs cor

rectl y as sert , it

is the inte nt of the part ies which s hould guide t he court when i nterpreting c ontract s. Pl . Br. at 11; O’Farrell

v. Steel Cit

y Piping Co. , 403 A .2d 1319 , 1324 (Pa . Super. 197 9) (“In
con strui ng a con tract , a co urt’s par am oun t con side ratio n is th e inte nt o f the par ties” ). De fend ant co unters that the expr ess term s of th e w ritten co ntract g over n. D efen dant is correct –only where a contr act i s ambiguous maythe court look bey ond the cl ear te xt of the co ntract. See, e. g. , Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit , Inc. , 619 F.2d 1001, 1009 (3d Cir. 1980). A contr act i s ambiguous when it is sus cepti ble to morethan one
reas ona ble in terp retat ion
. Pacitti by Pa citti v. Macy’s , 193 F.3 d 76 6, 77 3 (3 d C ir. 19 99)
. “[W]hen the words areclear and unambiguous theintent is t o be discovered onlyfrom the express l anguage of the agreement.” Id . at 773. The se co ntracts c an be read in only on e ma nner . Wh ere the plaintiff s failed to obtain insura nce f or their m ercha ndise , they wo uld w aive th eir rights to bring any claim again st defe ndan ts. Plaintif fs failu re here to pu rchas e insu rance cove rage is fatal to th eir claims.We further agree with the D istrict Court’s determina tion that the excu lpatory clause here re lieves Hae fner and the other def endan ts of any liability . An ex culpatory clause i s enforceabl e where the “l anguage of the par ties is cl ear that a pers on is bei ng6

reli eved of li abili ty for his own acts of negl igence. ” Topp Copy Products, I nc. v. Singletary , 626 A .2d 98 , 99 (P a. 199 3). H ere, pla intiffs a greed to ho ld def enda nts harmless for “anyloss . . . f rom all c auses whatsoe ver.” App. at S.A. 93a , 95a. As the Pennsyl vania Supreme Court explai ned in Cannon v. Bresch , 307 Pa. 3 1, 34 (Pa . 193 2), It is clear that the term all is sufficient to enc omp ass negligen ce. The term s are emphatic - - the word ‘ all’ needs no defi niti on; it include s every thing, and excludes noth ing. T here is no m ore co mp rehen sive w ord in the lan guag e, and as use d her e it is ob vio usly b roa d en oug h to cov er lia bility fo r ne glig enc e. Here, Haefner was re leased f rom “all ” liabili ty . We need look no furt her. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of t he District Court

will be a ffirmed.

/s/ D. Brooks Smith Circuit Judge