Opinion ID: 859167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pennsylvania Law on Insurance Contracts

Text: A Pennsylvania court tasked with determining the scope of coverage of an insurance policy must examine the plain language of the policy to infer the intent of the parties. Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc., 2 A.3d 526, 540 (Pa. 2010). If the policy contains any ambiguities, they are construed against the insurer. Id. Where the policy contains clear and unambiguous language, however, the court is required to give effect to that language. Lexington Ins. Co. v. W. Pa. Hosp., 423 F.3d 318, 326 (3d Cir. 2005). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that an insurer has the duty to defend an insured if the factual allegations of the Underlying Action “on [their] face encompass an injury that is actually or potentially within the scope of the policy.” Jerry’s Sport Ctr., 2 A.3d at 541. If the insurer is doubtful as to whether the complaint may or may not fall within the scope of the policy, it is obligated to defend the insured. Id. By contrast, the duty to indemnify is narrower, and only arises as to those losses that are actually within the policy‟s coverage. Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey, 68 F.3d 828, 831 n.1 (3d Cir. 1995).