2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-17-2010 

# Ale a London Ltd v

. W o o d l ak e Mgmt 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 . 09-1429

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_2010

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 2010 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
" Ale a L ondon Lt d v

. W oodl ake Mgmt " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1878. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1878NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 1429 ALEA LON DO N LI M I TED

v. W OO DLA KE M AN AG EM ENT; C L IV E D E N R E A L T Y C O R P .; C L IV E D E N 2 0 0 2 , L .P ., d /b /a C L IV E D E N A P A R T M E N T S ; C L IV E D E N , L .P .; KHAR AB DUL AH; M I RT A NI E VE S - AB DUL AH W o o d la k e M a n a g e m e n t, C liv e d e n R e a lty C o rp ., C l i ved en 2 00 2, L . P . , d/b/ a C l i ved en A partm ents ,

C liv e d e n , L .P .,

A p p e llan ts 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 E a ste rn 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. 2- 08- cv- 4093 ( H o n o r a b l e A n i t a B . B r o d y) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary15, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , B A R R Y a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges . ( Fi l ed February17, 2010 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTA b d u lah ’s a d d iti o n a l alle g a tio n s o f n e g lig e n c e a ll rela ted to th e in a d e q u a te s e c u rity 1 l ock. Forexampl e, he al l eged W oodl ake ne gl i gent l yfai l ed t o w arn hi m of the condi t i on and negl i gent l yfai l ed t o t r ai n i t s empl oy ees t o r epai rthe l ock. 2 S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge . K harA bdul ah and hi s w i fe br oughts ui ti n the Phi l adel phi a C our tof C om m on Pl eas agai ns tA ppel l ant s W oodl ake M anage m ent , C l i veden Real tyC orp. , C l i veden 2002, L . P. d/b/ a C l i veden A part m ent s , and C l i veden, L . P. ( col l ect i vel y“W oodl ake” ) for per s onal i nj ur i es s us t ai ned i n a s hoot i ng atthe C l i veden A part m ent s . A ppel l ee A l ea L o n d o n L td. ( “A lea” ), W o o d lake ’s i n su rer, so u g h t a de clarato ryjud g m en t i n fe d era l cou rt to e sta b lish th a t an a ss a u lt an d b a ttery ex c lu sio n in th e in su ra n c e p o licyd isc h a rg e d its d u tyto d ef

en d o r i n d em n ifyW o o d lake . T h e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia g ra n ted A lea ’s m o tio n f o r ju d g m e n t o n th e p lea d in g s. W e w ill a f f i r m. I . O n J ul y13, 2005, A bdul ah w as s hotm ul t i pl e t i m es byan unknow n as s ai l antatt he C liv e d e n A p a rt m e n ts , a p ro p e rt yo w n e d o r m a in ta in e d a t a ll tim e s b yW o o d la k e . A b d u la h a n d h is w if

e f ile d s u it a s s e rt in g m u ltip le c o u n ts o f n e g lig e n c e a g a in s t W o o d la k e . In p a rticu lar , A b d u lah c laim e d W o o d lak e f a iled to p ro v id e o r re p a ir a w o rk in g se c u rity l ock, cr eat i ng a dange r ous and def ect i ve condi t i on on the pr emi s es and ena bl i ng the a ss a ilan t to e n ter th e a p a rtm e n t b u ild in g . A lea b ro u g h t a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t ac tio n in 1 fede r al courtar gui ng an exc l us i on i n the pol i cyforcl ai m s ar i s i ng outof orr el at ed t o anT he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332( a) ( 2) . W e have 2 j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 a s s a u l to rb a t t e r y, i n c l u d i n g a f a i l u r e t o p r e v e n to rs u p p r e s s a n a s s a u l to rb a t t e ry, exempt ed i tfrom i t s dutyt o d efen d W oo dlake i n A bd ulah’ s sui t . T he ex cl usi on provides: T hi s i ns ur ance does notappl yt o anycl ai m ar i s i ng outof an a s s aul tand/ or batt eryr egar dl es s of cul pabi l i tyori nt entoroutof a phy s i cal al t er cat i on or outof anyactorfai l ur e t o actt o pr eventors uppr es s s uch as s aul tand/ or batt eryora phy s i cal al t er cat i on w hethercaus ed bythe i ns ur ed, an e m p lo y e e , a p a tro n , o r a n yo th e r p e rso n . . . . T h e c o m p a n yis u n d e r n o d u ty t o defe nd ort o i ndemni fyan i ns ur ed i n anyact i on orpr ocee di ng al l egi ng s u c h d a m a g e s a ri s in g o u t o f a n a s s a u lt a n d /o r b a tte ry o r p h y s ic a l a lte rc a tio n . T hi s excl us i on appl i es as w el l t o anycl ai m s byanyotherper s on, fi r m or or gani zat i on, as s ert i ng r i ght s der i ved fr om , orcont i ngentupon, anyper s on as s ert i ng a cl ai m ar i s i ng outof an a s s aul tand/ orbatt eryora phy s i cal al t er cat i on, and s peci fi cal l yexcl udes fr om cover age c l ai m s for : emot i onal d is tr e s s , o r f

o r l o s s o f . . . c o n s o rt iu m . . . . T hi s excl us i on appl i es t o al l caus es of ac t i on ar i s i ng outof an a s s aul tand/ or batt eryr egar dl es s of cul pabi l i tyori nt entoroutof a phy s i cal al t er cat i on in c lu d in g , b u t n o t li m ited to , alle g a tio n s o f n e g lig e n t h irin g , p lac e m e n t, tr ai ni ng, ors upervi s i on, ort o anyact , err or , orom i s s i on r el at i ng t o s uch an as s aul tand/ orbatt eryora phy s i cal al t er cat i on. W o o d lake arg u ed the e x clus ion d id n o t app lyb ec au se A b d u lah a ll eg ed W o o d lake ’s negl i gence caus ed hi s i nj ur i es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed A l ea’ s m ot i on forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( c) , concl udi ng thatbeca us e A bdul ah’ s i nj ur i es ar os e fr om the as s aul tand notdi r ect l yfr om W oodl ake’ s al l eged ne gl i gence , the exc l us i on app l i ed. W oo dlake no w app eal s. 2A l ea doe s notar gue A bdul ah’ s i nj ur i es do notfal l underthe pol i cy ’ s gr antof 3 c o v e ra g e , see B au m ha m m ers , 9 3 8 A .2 d a t 2 9 3 (h o ld in g a n in ten tio n a l ac t b ya th ird p a rty s t i l l cons t i tut ed an “ occurr ence ” underan i ns ur ance contr act ) , butr athercl ai m s onl yt hat the as s aul tand batt eryexcl us i on bar s cover age. 4 II. O u r r e v ie w o f

a R u le 1 2 (c ) m o tio n is p le n a ry. R os enau v. U ni f und C or p. , 539 F. 3d 218, 221 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . J udgm enton the pl eadi ngs “w i l l notbe gr ant ed unl es s the m ovantcl ear l yes t abl i s hes thatno m at er i al i s s ue of f actr emai ns t o be r es ol ved and thathe i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” I d. ( quot i ng J

a b lo n sk i v. P a n A m . W

o rld A i r w ays , I

nc. , 8 6 3 F .2 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 )). W e m u st v iew a ll fa c ts a n d d ra w a ll in f e re n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . I d. W hen i nt erpr et i ng an i ns ur ance contr actunderPenns y l vani a l aw , w hi ch al l part i es agr ee gove r ns the di s put e, the courtm us tas cert ai n and gi ve ef fec tt o the part i es ’ i nt entas m a n if e s te d in th e te rm s o f

th e p o lic y . D on ega lMut. Ins. C o. v. B au m ha m m ers , 938 A . 2d 286, 290 ( Pa. 2007) . W her e the contr actl anguage i s ambi guous , w e mustcons true that p ro v is io n in f

a v o r o f th e in s u re d . Min n . F ire & C a s. C o . v. G re e n field , 855 A . 2d 854, 861 ( Pa. 2004) . B ut , w her e the l anguage i s cl earand unambi guous , w e mustgi ve ef fec t to it. I d. I f an i ns ur err el i es on a pol i cyexcl us i on as an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e t o deny cov erage, i tbears the b urden o f prov i ng the ex cl usi on app l i es. M adis on C ons tr . C o. v. 3 H ar l eys vi l l e Mut . I

ns . C o. , 7 3 5 A .2 d 1 0 0 , 1 0 6 (P a . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e d u tyo f a n in su re r to defe nd the i ns ur ed appl i es t o anys ui ti n w hi ch the compl ai ntal l eges i nj ur i es thatm ay5

p o te n tia lly f

a ll w ith in th e g ra n t o f

c o v e ra g e . B au m ha m m ers , 938 A . 2d at290- 91. T he courtm us tl ook bey ond the ca us e of a ct i on pl ed t o the fa ctual al l egat i ons i ncl uded i n t he c o m p la in t. I

d. at291. T h e e x c lu s io n d e n ie s c o v e ra g e f o r c la im s “ a ri s in g o u t o f ” a n a s s a u lt o r b a tte ry. T h e te rm “ a ri s in g o u t o f ” is in te rp re te d in te rm s o f “ b u t f o r” c a u s a tio n . See M

adis on C on str. , 735 A . 2d at109- 10. T her efor e, i f an a s s aul torbatt eryw as a “butfor ” ca us e of the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur i es , an as s aul tand batt eryexcl us i on w i l l appl yt o al l egat i ons thatt he in s u re d ’s n e g lig e n c e c o n tr ib u te d to th e in ju ri e s . See A cceptance Ins. C o. v. Seyb ert , 757 A . 2d 380, 383 ( Pa. Super . C t . 2000) . T he i ns ur eronl yow es a dutyt o defe nd i f the c o m p la in t a lle g e s th e in s u re d ’s n e g lig e n c e its e lf d ir e c tly le d to th e in

ju ri e s . See Q B E Ins. C or p. v. M&S Landis C or

p. , 9 1 5 A .2 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 9 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e p a rties ’ d isp u te o n a p p e a l ce n ter s o n th e a p p lica tio n o f tw o P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p e rio r C o u rt c a se s: S e y b e rt and QBE . I n Seyb ert , the p l ai nti ff b rough tsui tagainst B el m ontB ar , al l egi ng i tnegl i gent l ys erved al cohol t o fi ve vi s i bl yi nt oxi cat ed men w ho su b seq u en tl yatt ac k ed h im . 7 5 7 A . 2 d at 38 1 . B elm o n t argu ed an assa u ltan d b att ery e x c lu s io n d id n o t a p p ly b e c a u s e th e c la im s w e re b a s e d o n B e lm o n t’ s n e g lig e n c e . I d. at 383. T he courtdi s agr eed, hol di ng thatbeca us e the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur i es r es ul t ed s ol el yfr om th e a ss a u lt an d b a ttery, B e lm o n t’s n e g lig e n c e w a s m e re lya c o n trib u tin g f a c to r a n d n o t a d ir e c t c a u s e o f

th e in ju ri e s . I d.T h e s h o o tin g c o n s titu te d a n a s s a u lt u n d e r P e n n s y lv a n ia la w . See 1 8 P a . C o n s t. S ta t. § 4 2 7 0 1 (d e f

in in g a ss a u lt as “ n e g lig e n tlyc a u s[ in g ] b o d ilyin ju ryto a n o th e r w ith a d e a d ly w ea p o n ”). 6 I n QBE , the u n d erly ing co m p lai n t al lege d em p loy ee s o f d ef en d an t Fa t D ad d y ’s N i ght cl ub for ci bl yej ect ed a pa tr on and i m pr oper l yr es tr ai ned hi m , eventual l ys m other i ng h im to d e a th . 9 1 5 A .2 d a t 1 2 2 4 . T h e c o m p lain t alle g e d F a t D a d d y ’s n e g lig e n tly restrai n ed the p atron an d n eg li g en tl ytr aine d an d h ir ed it s staff , ca u sing the p atron ’s d e a th . I d. T he courthel d t he exc l us i on di d notappl ybeca us e the compl ai ntal l eged the in ju ri e s “ a ro s e f

ro m th e a lle g e d n e g lig e n c e ,” n o t f ro m a n a s s a u lt o r b a tte ry. I d. a t 1 2 2 9 . A c c o rd in g ly , the a lleg e d n e g lig e n c e w a s a d ire c t ca u se o f th e in ju rie s, trig g e rin g th e d u ty to d e f e n d . I d. A l l i nj ur i es al l eged i n t hi s compl ai ntar e the r es ul tof the s hoot i ng i t s el f, and 4
acc or di ngl y , the as s aul tw as a “butfor ” ca us e of A bdul ah’ s i nj ur i es . T her e w as no al l egat i on i n t he compl ai ntthatW oodl ake’ s negl i gence di r ect l ycaus ed hi s i nj ur i es or caus ed anyi ndepende ntharm , as ther e w as i n QBE . R a th e r, W o o d lak e ’s f a ilu re to pr ovi de a w or ki ng s ecur i tyl ock contr i but ed t o the s hoot i ng i n m uch the s ame w ayas B el m ont ’ s negl i gents el l i ng of al cohol t o vi s i bl yi nt oxi cat ed i ndi vi dual s contr i but ed t o t he pl ai nt i ff’ s i nj ur i es i n Seyb ert . M o re o v e r, W o o d lak e ’s a lleg e d n e g lig e n c e o n lyre late s to i t s fai l ur e t o pr eventors uppr es s the as s aul t . T he as s aul tand batt eryexcl us i on encompas s es cl ai m s ar i s i ng bot h fr om an as s aul torbatt eryand fr om a fa i l ur e t o pr eventA b d u lah ’s w if e a lso b ro u g h t a c laim a g a in st W o o d lak e f o r lo ss o f c o n so rtiu m . T h is 5 cl ai m der i ves fr om the as s aul t , and cove r age f ori ti s expl i ci t l ybarr ed bythe l anguage of the exc l us i on. 7 ors uppr es s an as s aul torbatt ery . T hi s l anguage unambi guous l ybar s cover age f or A bdul ah’ s cl ai m s , and ac cor di ngl y , A l ea ha s no dutyt o defe nd ori ndemni fyW oodl ake. 5 III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof J udgm enton the P l eadings.