Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/-royal-indemnity-company-a-s-o-dana-corporation-plaintiff-v-security-guards-inc-defendant-united-states-district-court-for-the-eastern-district-of-pennsylvania-255-f-supp-2d-497-2003-us-dist-lexis-6586
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:14:24+00:00

Document:
DISPOSITION: [**1] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.
that its damages exceed $ 75,000.
OUTCOME: The Security Provider's motion for summary judgment was denied.
COURTNEY, P.C., PHILA, PA USA.
GREENGRASS, NEW YORK, NY USA.
JUDGES: MICHAEL M. BAYLSON, U.S.D.J.
respond to an alarm, which resulted in the spread of the fire.
50,000, and thus there is no federal jurisdiction, will be denied.
The following facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
executed on August 14, 1989, and renewed annually pursuant to its terms. Id.
Pichini Aff. P 9, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 1.
guard booth on August 11, 1999, from 2 p.m to 10 p.m. (Pl.'s Compl. P 12).
which, in the case of a fire, would contact the Reading fire department. Id.
shop in Section 104 of the Lewis building at the Dana plant. Id. PP 16, 17.
would have been substantially less. Id. PP 24, 25.
Receipt, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A.
suit. Id. PP 30, 33, 36.
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ.
there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Id.
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Pennsylvania Supreme Court are the authoritative source. See State Farm Mut.
court will consider the pronouncements of the lower state courts. See id.
this action is located in this District. Id. P 5.
for such loss to the extent of $ 50,000 per occurrence.
limited to claims based on negligence.
parties, the terms of the contract are susceptible of different meanings.'"
John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd., v. CIGNA Int'l. Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1074 (3d Cir.
reasonable, alternative meanings. Madison Constr. Co. v. Harleyville Mut.
ambiguity." Madison Constr., 735 A.2d at 106.
Mot. Summ. J. at 1-2).
[*502] SGI asserts that this provision was essential to the agreement.
damages caused to Dana by SGI's negligence to $ 50,000. (Def.'s Mem. Law.
Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 5).
Associates, Inc., 44 F.3d 195, 202-03 (3d Cir. 1995); Def.'s Mem. Law. Supp.
security services, which amounted to $ 533,733.19 for 1999. Def.'s Mem. Law.
Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 7 (citing Pichini Aff. P 9, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex.
address the claims based on breach of contract.
Insurance v. ADT Security Systems, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17692, No.
the defendants. Id. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17692 at *13.
customer's property or property of others located in customer's premises.
otherwise, of ADT, its agents or employees.
Id. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17692 at *8 (emphasis added).
equity shall be the right to recover a sum within such limit.
Id. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17692 at *9 (emphasis added).
are keyed to negligence and conduct that is "otherwise" wrongful.
Id. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17692 at *10.
the conduct alleged is found to be grossly negligent, willful, or wanton."
limited for breach of contract.
SGI guard to immediately notify the Department 104 supervisor. (Pichini Aff.
Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B; Ott. Dep. at 101, Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot.
a minute. (Clarke Dep. at 67-69, Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B).
Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. E).
on the scene three minutes after [**17] the fire department was alerted.
"critical alarm" referred to, he knew that it could be "very, very serious"
sounded. Id. at 25-26, 61, 67.
facts as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). (Pl.'s Mem. Resp. Def.'s Mot.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ.
J. at 2, 8, 18.
9-10; Pichini Aff. PP 6-8, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 1). SGI argues that Mr.
Reply Brief Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 10).
reliance on the affidavit in its responsive brief belies its own argument.
Pennsylvania does not recognize a cause of action for gross negligence.
(Def.'s Mem. Law. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 7).
Pennsylvania law and which discuss the concept of gross negligence.
as compared to a single bullet from a rifle.
judgment issue in this case.
In Shouey v. Duck Head Apparel Company, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 413, 417 (W.D.
as simply having asserted a claim for negligence. Id. at 418.
claim is not cognizable under Pennsylvania law. (Def.'s Mem. Law. Supp. Mot.
Leasing Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 786, 790 (E.D. Pa.
Inc., 516 F. Supp. 1122, 1126 (E.D. Pa. 1981), aff'd, 688 F.2d 820 (3d Cir.
conduct rather than on the results of the incident.
argument is supported by close analysis of case law.
negligence. 484 A.2d at 749. As noted, though, in Home Indemnity Company v.
National Guardian Sec. Services Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6603, No.
jury could find gross negligence." Albright, 696 A.2d at 1165.
ordinary care to the extent that they constituted gross negligence. 516 F.
certain tests required for particular alarm systems. Id. 1997 U.S. Dist.
contractual obligations. Id. 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12124 at *7.
the conduct of a reasonable person and, therefore, perhaps negligence."
was received. Id. at 9 (citing Dana Alarm Records, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex.
that it could not detect the entry of a person into the store. 516 F. Supp.
understood could be "very, very serious."
recall doing so. (Def.'s Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ex C at 25).
Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Exs. B, C).
negligence. SGI's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II will be denied.
Mot. Summ. J. at 14 n.4).
conduct for which liability was excluded or limited." Neuchatel, 1998 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 17692, 1998 WL 966080, at *9.
negligence" of SGI or its employees. (Agreement, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex.
based on duties SGI owes Dana "as a matter of social policy." (Pl.'s Resp.
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. at 16).
raised a genuine issue of material fact on both actions. 1997 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12124, 1997 WL 539752, [**31] at *5-7.
the "gist of the action" approach. Id.
while if there had been an improper performance, the action lies in tort.
contract being collateral." Grode v. Mutual Fire, Marine, and Inland Ins.
Circuit Corp. v. Jerrold Elec., 426 F. Supp. 361, 364 (E.D. Pa. 1977)).
characterized as a tort, then the action sounds in tort and not in contract.
Mkt., Inc. v. Schuller Int'l., Inc., 987 F. Supp. 387, 393-94 (E.D. Pa.
mutual consensus." Phico, 663 A.2d at 757 (cited in Factory Mkt., Inc. v.
on Count III will be denied.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.