Opinion ID: 2313119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The motions for summary judgment in the Superior Court

Text: Pacific filed two motions for summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action, one seeking a declaration that Pacific had no obligation to reimburse Conrail for the costs of defending the Flowers and Fydenkevez actions, and the second to construe the Other Insurance provisions in the Liberty and Pacific Force Account policies. Conrail sought summary judgment on the existence and extent of the duties of both Liberty and Pacific to defend Conrail in the Flowers and Fydenkevez actions. Liberty cross-moved for summary judgment to determine the extent of its obligation to defend and/or indemnify Conrail. [16] The Superior Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Conrail as to Pacific's duty to defend Conrail. That court found that the work conducted at the Mt. Pleasant Crossing as alleged in the Complaints was part of the Route 15 Project and was work or operations for the State of Delaware within the meaning of the Pacific Force Account Policy. [17] The court also concluded that all of the claims raised were causally connected, in some fashion, to Conrail's force account work personnel and their duty to protect the public while on site. As a result, the court found it was readily apparent that a causal connection between Conrail's force account work and the deaths in question had been pled with sufficient particularity so as to obligate Pacific to defend Conrail. [18] The court granted Conrail's motion for summary judgment and denied Pacific's motion, holding that Pacific had a duty to defend Conrail unless and until any claims being pursued were determined to be beyond the coverage of the Pacific Force Account Policy. [19] The Superior Court also construed the Liberty Policies to determine whether Conrail was an additional insured as defined in the Additional Insured Clause. The Superior Court found that that clause was unambiguous and that its express terms provided coverage for Conrail only with respect to liability arising out of Julian's operations. [20] In interpreting the arising out of provision and concluding that Liberty was not required to defend Conrail, the Superior Court reasoned: If the Flowers or Fydenkevez Complaints had contained allegations that Conrail's liability was based solely upon Julian's operations or personnel, Conrail would appear to be covered under the plain language and meaning of the policy. [The Liberty Policies] would only provide coverage for Conrail where Conrail could be held responsible via the acts of Julian thru Julian's employees or agents, based upon some legal relationship with Julian, e.g., agency or respondeat superior. Where liability is based upon the acts of Conrail by and thru [sic] Conrail's agents or employees, Conrail would not be an additional insured under the Liberty policy. Again, while Conrail's participation in the Route 15 Project appears to have been intertwined with Julian's effort, the alleged negligence of Conrail was separate and distinct from the allegations made against Julian. It did not arise out of or result from Julian's operations. Each entity was alleged to be at fault in its own way, and the liability of Conrail is not premised upon its relationship with Julian. Liberty is therefore not required to defend or insure Conrail for liability which arose out of its own negligence. [21] In the alternative, the Superior Court also held that the claims were not covered under the insured contract definition, which it read to exclude injuries or losses taking place with fifty feet of the railroad crossing. [22] Because the Superior Court concluded that coverage was not available under the Liberty Policies, it granted summary judgment for Liberty and denied Conrail's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. As a result of the court's conclusion that Pacific alone had a duty to defend, Pacific's remaining motion to construe the other insurance provisions of the Liberty and Pacific Force Account policies was rendered moot. [23] The Superior Court granted re-argument. [24] After additional briefing and argument, the Superior Court reaffirmed its decision that Pacific owed a duty to defend under the Pacific Force Account Policy. [25] In November 2005, the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims that were brought, or could have been brought, by or against Julian and Conrail. Pacific reached an agreement providing for, among other things, the assignment to Pacific of Conrail's claims, rights and damages against Liberty, including all appellate rights. The parties then moved for, and the Superior Court issued, a final order, from which this appeal is taken.