Barnes v. Westfield Group
62 A.3d 382
Pa. Super. Ct.2012Background
- George Barnes worked as a field service technician for McGovern, Inc. which carried Westfield insurance; Barnes was an insured under the policy.
- Barnes was assigned to a Wawa store to unblock a clogged drain when an unidentified vehicle struck him.
- Barnes’ work vehicle included a McGovern-owned cargo van towing a diesel jetter trailer, with the jetter capable of operation while detached from the van.
- The jetter trailer could be attached to the van via electrical connections controlling trailer lights; the jetter is described as a self-sufficient unit.
- Barnes was actively working with the jetter when struck, attempting to feed a hose into the drain with a pump truck arriving later.
- Westfield moved for summary judgment asserting no uninsured motorist coverage or that Barnes was not occupying a motor vehicle; the trial court granted summary judgment for Westfield; Barnes appealed the order to reverse and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity in policy defining insured and UM benefits. | Barnes argues the policy language is ambiguous and inconsistent. | Westfield contends the language should be interpreted in the policy’s terms. | Issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether a trailed jetter attached to a van can be a motor vehicle for UM purposes. | Barnes contends a tractor-trailer analysis applies; the trailer can be a motor vehicle. | Westfield argues the jetter is not a motor vehicle when unattached and not occupying a vehicle. | A genuine issue of material fact exists; a trailed vehicle can be a motor vehicle for UM purposes. |
| Whether Barnes was occupying a motor vehicle when struck. | Under Utica Mutual, Barnes could be considered occupying due to proximity, vehicle orientation, and use. | Utica factors not satisfied; Barnes was not occupying a vehicle. | Material facts remain; cannot grant summary judgment. |
| Whether the trial judge’s failure to disclose his spouse’s employment created an appearance of impropriety. | Disclosures were required and failure tainted proceedings. | Recusal not warranted; disclosure was insufficient to affect impartiality. | Concurring opinion condemns non-disclosure; remand possible for recusal considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callahan v. Federal Kemper Ins. Co., 568 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. 1989) (tractor-trailer as motor vehicle; liberal MVFRL interpretation)
- Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Contnsciane, 473 A.2d 1009 (Pa. 1984) (occupying vehicle factors requirement)
- Curry v. Huron Ins. Co., 781 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super. 2001) (beacon activation not sufficient to show occupancy)
- Eñe Ins. Exch. v. Larrimore, 987 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009) (interpretation of uninsured motorist provisions)
- Miles v. Ryan, 697 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2012) (recusal standard: reasonable observer would question impartiality)
- Reilly v. SEPTA, 489 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 1985) (recusal and disclosure duties)
- Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 912 A.2d 827 (Pa. 2006) (recusal procedures; appropriateness of reassignment)