Opinion ID: 51712
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Title VII Suit

Text: Regardless of whether the money that DCCC seeks to recover from Philadelphia in this suit is characterized as a “loss” or a “defense cost” under the policy, it is clear that DCCC’s obligation to pay the $145,000 did not “result from” the Title VII suit. Policy ¶I.A. (“The Company will pay . . . any loss and defense cost, resulting from any claim . . . made against the insured during this policy period”). The $145,000 obligation did not result from the suit as a “defense cost” 5 because DCCC did not incur it as consequence of defending itself against the Title VII suit. Policy ¶II.C.1. (a defense cost is an expense “incurred in the defense of a claim . . . by the insured”). Likewise, the obligation did not result from the suit as a “loss” because the $145,000 was not incurred “as damages” to the plaintiff or “in settlement” of the plaintiff’s claim.1 Policy ¶II.G. (“Loss shall mean money an insured is legally obligated to pay as damages or in settlement”). Instead of resulting from the Title VII suit, the obligation for which DCCC now seeks reimbursement resulted from a second claim made against DCCC—the indemnity claim Impact first asserted in 2003—and the subsequent arbitration proceeding held in May 2004 to adjudicate that claim. DCCC Br. at 21 (“It is DCCC who suffered the loss by the attorneys fees arbitration award holding DCCC legally liable for [Impact’s] defense in the [Title VII suit]”).