Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0000798.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:17:31+00:00

Document:
DTL MECHANICAL, LLC, SCOTT EVANS and MARIA EVANS, Defendants.
State Farm seeks a declaration that it did not owe DTL a duty to defend or indemnify it in the underlying litigation, and thus has no obligation to indemnify the Evanses under the Assignment. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Evanses responded by asserting thirteen counterclaims. (Resp. at 12-28.) State Farm filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Mot. at 1), which the Court grants for the reasons that follow.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smathers v. Mutli-Tool, Inc./Multi-Plastics, Inc. Emp. Health & Welfare Plan, 298 F.3d 191, 194 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In reviewing the record, a court “must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor.” Prowell v. Wise Bus. Forms, 579 F.3d 285, 286 (3d Cir. 2009). The court may not, however, make credibility determinations or weight the evidence in considering motions for summary judgment. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); see also Goodman Pa. Tpk. Comm'n, 293 F.3d 655, 665 (3d Cir. 2002).
Under Pennsylvania law, “the interpretation of an insurance contract regarding the existence or non-existence of coverage is generally performed by the court.” Gardner v. State Farm Fire & Gas. Co., 544 F.3d 553, 557 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286, 290 (Pa. 2007)); see also Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888, 897 (Pa. 2006) (“The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law”). “When the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language.” Baumhammers, 938 A.2d at 290. If the language of the policy is ambiguous, the policy must be construed against the insurer. Med. Protective Co. v. Watkins, 198 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1999).
The Evanses seek indemnification from State Farm based on State Farm's alleged duty to defend and indemnify DTL in the underlying litigation. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 742, 746 (3d Cir. 1999), and that duty is assessed by comparing the underlying complaint to the insurance policy. See Gene's Rest., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 548 A.2d 246, 246-47 (Pa. 1988). Factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true and liberally construed in favor of the insured. Frog, 193 F.3d at 746 (citing Biborosch v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 603 A.2d 1050, 1052 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)). The duty to defend arises if “the allegations in the complaint…could potentially fall within the coverage of the policy.” Air Prods. & Chemicals, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 25 F.3d 177, 179 (3d Cir. 1994). In assessing that duty, the Court focuses on the factual allegations contained in the complaint, rather than the causes of action. See Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Haver, 725 A.2d 743, 745 (Pa. 1999); see also Quality Stone Veneer, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., No. 15-6509, 2017 WL 345636, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2017) (analyzing factual assertions in original complaint and amended joinder complaint). “Because an insurer's duty to defend it's insured in a lawsuit is broader than its duty to indemnify, it necessarily follows that it will not have a duty to indemnify an insured for a judgment in an action for which it was not required to provide defense.” Ramara, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 814 F.3d 660, 673 (3d Cir. 2016).

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