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 5-28-2009 

# D a vid S h a w v . S t at e F arm Ins 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 . 08-3285

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . 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 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 nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D a vid S h a w v . S t at e F arm In s C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1292. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1292NOT 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- 3285

_____________ D A V I D S H A W,

A p p e lla n t. v. S T AT E F AR M I NS UR ANC E CO .

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cv- 1553) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G aryL . L anca s t er

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay20, 2009 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , J O R D A N , a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: M ay28, 2009)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . D avid Sh aw app eal s the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s O rderenter i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst h im . F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f irm .St at e Farm M utual A ut om obi l e I ns ur ance C om panyhas been i ncorr ect l yr efe r r ed t o as 1 “ S ta te F a rm In s u ra n c e C o m p a n y ” th ro u g h o u t th is m a tte r. 2 I . Backg r ound Shaw , a s ani t at i on w or ker , w as i nj ur ed on the j ob w hen he f el l off the bac k of a garbage truck thatw as bei ng oper at ed bya co- w or ker . Shaw fi l ed for , and r ece i ved, w o rk e r’s c o m p e n sa tio n , an d h e a lso a p p lied w ith S tate F a rm M u tu a l A u to m o b ile Insur ance C o. , his autom ob i l e i nsurer , for un i nsured m otor i st/un deri nsured m otor i st 1 ( “U M /U I M ”) benef

i t s . U nderhi s pol i cy , Shaw coul d obt ai n s uch bene fi t s onl yi f he w as “l egal l yent i t l ed t o col l ectcompensa t or ydamages fr om t he ow nerordr i verof [the] uni ns ur ed . . . orunder i ns ur ed mot orvehi cl e. ” ( A pp. at23. ) B as ed on i t s det erm i nat i ons t hatShaw w as not“l egal l yent i t l ed” t o damages fr om hi s co- w or kerorhi s empl oy erand t hatt he garbage truck w as not“uni ns ur ed” or“under i ns ur ed, ” as t he t erm s w er e def i ned in th e p o lic y , S ta te F a rm d e n ie d h is c la im . Shaw fi l ed s ui tagai ns tSt at e Farm i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l egheny C ount y , Penns y l vani a, and St at e Farm r emoved t he ca s e t o t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T he part i es s t i pul at ed t o a numberof fac t s , i ncl udi ng t hatt he garbage truck ca r r i ed $5 mi l l i on i n l i abi l i t yi ns ur ance and that S haw ’s dam ages resul t i ng from his fal l did not exceed $ 5 m i l l i on . R eview i ng cross m o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t S h a w w a s n o t leg a lly e n tit led to c o llec t f

ro m th e d riv e r o r o w n e r o f th e g a rb a g e tru c k b e c a u se th e P e n n sy lv a n ia“A n appel l at e courtm ayaff i r m a r es ul tr eac hed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ton di ffe r ent 2 r eas ons , as l ong as t he r ecor d s uppor t s t he j udgm ent . ” G u th r ie v . L a d y J a n e C o lle r ie s , 3 W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on A ct( “PW C A ”) pr ovi des t he exc l us i ve r emedyfori nj ur i es occurr i ng i n t he s cope of empl oym ent . A ccor di ngl y , i tgr ant ed St at e Farm ’ s m ot i on and ent er ed s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tShaw . Shaw ’ s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. I I . D i s cus s i on T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is m a tte r p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 . W e tak e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo and affirm on l yi f “t he m ov i ng party[has] demonst r at e[d] ‘ t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” G ardn er v. Stat e Farm F i re andC as. C o. , 5 4 4 F .3 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 7 -5 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( q u o tin g F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c )) . S h a w a rg u e s th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in d e f in in g “ le g a lly e n title d to c o lle c t,” as th e p h rase is use d in h is i n su ran ce p o li cy , to p rec lud e h im fro m o b tai n ing U M /U IM benef i t s fr om St at e Farm . I ns t ead of cons t rui ng t he phr as e t o m ean “ notpr ohi bi t ed fr om r ecove r i ng damages undert he oper at i ve l aw , ” as t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d, Shaw ar gues t hat w e s houl d defi ne i tas “abl e t o es t abl i s h faul tand damages . ” ( O peni ng B r . at10. ) R ather t han addr es s i ng t hi s uns et t l ed ques t i on of s t at e l aw , w e w i l l aff i r m on t he al t ernat i ve gr ound t hatShaw i s i nel i gi bl e t o r ecove rU M /U I M benef i t s beca us e the garbage truck fr om w hi ch he f

el l w as notuni ns ur ed orunder i ns ur ed. 2I

nc. , 722 F. 2d 1141, 1145 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( ci t i ng Helver i ng v. G ow r an , 302 U . S. 238, 2 4 5 (1 9 3 7 )) . 4 W e mustl ook t o bot h Shaw ’ s i ns ur ance pol i cyand the Penns y l vani a M ot or V ehi cl e Fi nanci al R es pons i bi l i t yL aw ( “M V FR L ”) fort he def i ni t i ons of “unde r i ns ur ed” and “uni ns ur ed, ” bec aus e, underPenns y l vani a l aw , t he t erm s of an i ns ur ance contr act m u s t n o t c o n f

lic t w ith th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n s . P ruden t i al Prop . an d C as. Ins. C o. v. C olbert , 813 A . 2d 747, 751 ( Pa. 2002) . T he M V FR L defi nes “under i ns ur ed mot or vehi cl e” a s “[a ] m ot orvehi cl e forw hi ch the l i m i t s of ava i l abl e l i abi l i t yi ns ur ance and s el f- i ns ur ance ar e i ns uffi ci entt o payl os s es and damages , ” and “ uni ns ur ed mot orvehi cl e” as anyof the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) A m ot orvehi cl e forw hi ch ther e i s no l i abi l i t yi ns ur ance ors el fin su ra n c e a p p lica b le a t th e tim e o f th e a c c id e n t. ( 2) A m ot orvehi cl e forw hi ch the i ns ur ance companydeni es cover age or th e in su ra n c e c o m p a n yis o r b e c o m e s in v o lv e d in in so lv e n c yp ro c e e d in g s in anyj ur i s di ct i on. (3) A n u n iden ti fied m o tor v eh icl e tha t cau ses a n ac cide n t r esu lt ing in injury pr ovi ded the ac ci denti s r epor t ed t o t he pol i ce orpr opergovernm ent al author i t yand the cl ai m antnot i fi es hi s i ns ur erw i t hi n 30 day s , oras s oon as pract i cable thereaft er, t hat the clai m ant orhis l egal r epresent at i ve h as a leg a l ac tio n a risin g o u t o f th e a c c id e n t. 7 5 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 1 7 0 2 . S h a w ’s in su ra n c e p o licyd e f in e s th e ter m s in a m a n n e r th a t is w h o lly c o n s is te n t w ith th e M V F R L . A ccor di ng t o t he def

i ni t i ons pr ovi ded bybot h t he M V FR L and the i ns ur ance pol i cy , i ti s cl eart hatt he garbage truck Shaw fel l fr om w as notuni ns ur ed. I ndeed, Shaw5

stip u late d th a t itc a rrie d $ 5 m ill io n in liab ili tyin su ra n c e , an d th e re c o rd d o e s n o t in d ica te th a t a c la im w a s f

ile d w ith th e tru c k ’s in s u re r, l e t a lo n e th a t th e in s u re r d e n ie d c o v e ra g e . N orw as t he truck under i ns ur ed. B yShaw ’ s ow n admi s s i on, hi s damages r es ul t i ng fr om th e a c c id e n t d id n o t e x c e e d $ 5 m illio n . I I I . C oncl usi on B eca us e Shaw w as noti nj ur ed w hi l e r i di ng on an uni ns ur ed orunder i ns ur ed mot or v e h icle , as th o se ter m s a re d e f in e d b yth e in su ra n c e p o licya n d P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s O rd e r e n te ri n g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a g a in s t h im .