Opinion ID: 2975885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Pre-March 31, 1972 Policies

Text: Plaintiff argues that it purchased policies from Defendant covering the period from March 31, 1967 until March 31, 1972 which did not include the pollution exclusion. Neither party, however, has produced copies of these policies. Under Pennsylvania law, a claimant seeking to recover under a lost instrument “is required to prove its former existence, execution, delivery, contents, that he is the owner thereof at the time of trial, and that the instrument is lost.” In re Greggerson’s Estate, 25 A.2d 711, 713 (Pa. 1942) (emphasis added). Furthermore, this burden must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Id. In Pennsylvania, clear and convincing evidence “must be so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to lead to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Foley v. Wasserman, 179 A. 595, 597 (1935) (internal quotations omitted); see also In re Baby Boy H., 585 A.2d 1054, 1056 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991) (holding same). Plaintiff submits three pieces of evidence to support its claim that the 1967-72 policies exist, and that they do not exclude coverage of the underlying lawsuit. First, in a document filed with the district court, Defendant states that “Halstead was the named insured under a number of comprehensive general liability insurance policies for the period of 3-31-67 through 3-31-77,” (J.A. 366.), although the attorney who signed this document claims the date “3-31-67 was a typo, and an amended document was later submitted. Second, Plaintiff highlights Defendant’s computer records 6 No. 07-5060 which state that Plaintiff’s 1972 policy was a “RENEWAL.” (J.A. 554.) Finally, Plaintiff relies on the testimony of a PMA employee who stated that the specific language contained in the pollution exclusion was not approved by the Pennsylvania Commissioner of Insurance until 1970, and thus this exclusion could not have existed in policies prior to that date. Based only on this evidence, Plaintiff asks this Court to infer that the pre-1972 policies were substantially similar to the post-1972 policies, except that they did not contain the pollution exclusion or any similar provision. Such an inference cannot be made under the clear and convincing evidence standard. Even assuming that the Defendant’s admission and its computer records could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the pre-1972 policies actually exist, that same jury must also be convinced that the contents of these policies encompass the underlying lawsuit in this case. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could only reach this conclusion if it believed the conclusion to be supported by evidence that is “clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to lead to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Foley 179 A. at 597. Plaintiff’s only evidence regarding the contents of the pre-1972 policies is a statement by Defendant’s employee that the precise language used in the post-1972 policies’ pollution exception could not have been contained in policies existing before 1970. Even if this statement is taken to be true, it is not sufficiently “clear, direct, weighty and convincing” to allow a reasonable jury “without hesitancy” to conclude that the underlying lawsuit falls within the terms of the policy. As the district court stated, “Mueller does not present any evidence of other terms of the policies that might provide or preclude coverage.” (J.A. 177.) Absent such evidence, we hold that the district 7 No. 07-5060 court correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims brought under the alleged pre-1972 policies.