Opinion ID: 3011844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accepting Flemming’s Allegations

Text: Sabine Flemming suggested in her briefing to the District Court that [d]efendant is to assume the additional events _________________________________________________________________ App. at 23 n.3 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The court’s statement that the declarations page do[es] not contain such a phrase is in error, as the declarations page clearly includes the relevant words and thus the internal limitation applies. Id. at 362. However, since our review is plenary, this error does not prevent us from affirming the court’s ultimate conclusion, no matter if its reasoning was flawed. See Klein v. General Nutrition Co., Inc., 186 F.3d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 1999). 19 occurred as stated by Plaintiff, and if so, [whether they] constitute multiple occurrences. Id. at 977. In oral argument before the District Court on the first motion for reconsideration, Sabine Flemming’s counsel suggested that the court was to accept her allegations as true for purposes of its ruling. Id. at 1357-58; 1363-64. Air Sunshine never objected to this assessment. Her counsel made the same assertion at oral argument before this Court, and Air Sunshine’s counsel again failed to disagree. However, while the parties appear to be under the impression that the settlement establishes this procedure, the settlement and its supporting documents in no way set forth such a process. It simply declares that the issues to be considered (non-jury) are . . . multiple occurrences as they relate to insurance coverage herein. Id. at 12. In the absence of any agreed instructions to the contrary, the District Court should have made explicit findings of fact based on the evidence before it, and then applied these facts to the policy language and relevant caselaw. However, the District Court failed to provide any guidance as to the nature of its consideration of the facts in its opinion. It did not make clear whether it was accepting Sabine Flemming’s allegations as true. We express our frustration with the ad hoc, imprecise procedures followed by the parties and hence by the District Court. For purposes of these appeals, however, we will accept Sabine Flemming’s allegations as true. Under any review of the facts, the events which led to James Flemming’s death did not constitute multiple occurrences under the policy.