C. Pachella and R. Pachella, w/h v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and St. Patrick's Parish, C. Pachella and R. Pachella, w/h v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and St. Patrick's Parish

Background

Mrs. Pachella slipped and fell on the sidewalk outside St. Patrick’s Parish on Election Day 2005; the County had leased the premises as a polling place and the Archdiocese owned the sidewalk.
Two written documents are at issue: a Lease Agreement (generally requires County to “maintain liability insurance”) and a 1989 License Agreement (expressly required the County to obtain $1,000,000 liability insurance naming both County and Archdiocese and to defend/indemnify the Archdiocese).
The Archdiocese joined the County in the underlying tort action, asserting negligence and breach of contract (alleging the County agreed to obtain insurance and to defend/indemnify).
The County moved for summary judgment invoking governmental immunity under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act; the trial court granted summary judgment and denied the Archdiocese’s cross-motion.
A Joint Stipulation established the Harco insurance policy existed (limits $1M/$3M excess to $250,000 SIR) and listed the County as a named insured; the Archdiocese later argued the policy did not name the Archdiocese as an insured, constituting breach of the License Agreement.
The trial courts (and this Court) held the Archdiocese never sufficiently pled a discrete breach-of-contract claim based on failure to procure insurance naming the Archdiocese, and affirmed summary judgment for the County.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Archdiocese sufficiently pleaded a breach-of-contract claim that the County failed to obtain $1,000,000 liability insurance naming the Archdiocese as insured	Archdiocese: Joinder Complaint and later filings put County on notice that County breached its contractual duties, including failure to procure required insurance under the License Agreement	County: Pleadings never alleged the specific insurance-procurement breach or essential contractual terms; claim was not separately pled and thus waived	Held: Not sufficiently pled. The Joinder Complaint alleged general duties to obtain insurance and to defend/indemnify but did not state that County breached the specific insurance-procurement obligation.
Whether the Tort Claims Act bars the Archdiocese’s contractual claims for indemnity/defense and for procuring insurance	Archdiocese: Tort Claims Act should not bar a properly pled breach-of-contract claim to enforce a contractual insurance requirement	County: Tort Claims Act bars recovery for tort damages and a local agency cannot contractually waive governmental immunity; indemnity/defense for tort damages is unenforceable	Held: Trial court correctly treated indemnity/defense claim as barred by Tort Claims Act; Court need not decide whether Tort Claims Act bars an unpled insurance-procurement claim because that claim was not pleaded.
Whether the indemnification/defense provision in the License Agreement is enforceable to shift tort liability	Archdiocese: County promised to defend/indemnify and repudiation/anticipatory breach supports relief	County: Governmental immunity and public policy prohibit contracting away immunity; indemnification for tort claims is unenforceable	Held: Indemnification/defense claim cannot be used to impose tort liability on the County; unenforceable as a means to evade governmental immunity.
Whether the trial court erred procedurally by not addressing the insurance-procurement claim in opinions and by granting summary judgment	Archdiocese: Trial court overlooked the License Agreement requirement and the Joint Stipulation evidence showing County didn’t name Archdiocese on the Harco policy	County: Archdiocese’s inconsistent pleadings and failure to amend/identify the specific claim relieved County and court of notice; summary judgment appropriate	Held: No error. The court reasonably concluded the complaint/cross-motion did not adequately plead the insurance-procurement breach; inconsistent labeling of documents contributed to confusion.

Key Cases Cited

McShea v. City of Philadelphia, 995 A.2d 334 (Pa. 2010) (pleading must set out material facts and essential terms of contract claim)
Hart v. Arnold, 884 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements of breach of contract claim)
Sims v. Silver Springs-Martin Luther Sch., 625 A.2d 1297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (governmental immunity cannot be circumvented by contract to impose tort liability)
City of Philadelphia v. Gray, 633 A.2d 1090 (Pa. 1993) (governmental immunity is absolute unless an exception applies)
Matarazzo v. Millers Mut. Group, Inc., 927 A.2d 689 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (plaintiff may not avoid governmental immunity by characterizing tort damages as contractual recovery)