Good, F. v. Frankie & Eddie's Hanover Inn, LLP
171 A.3d 792
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On April 4, 2012, Barry D. Good was killed in a DUI crash after alcohol was served to the driver at Frankie & Eddie’s Hanover Inn (Hanover Inn).
- Hanover Inn held a commercial policy from RCA/State National that included an ISO Liquor Liability Coverage Form showing an Aggregate limit of $1,000,000 and an “Each Occurrence” limit of $500,000 on the Declarations page.
- Underlying wrongful-death/survival claims were settled: RCA paid the undisputed $500,000; parties agreed a court would resolve whether an additional $500,000 (to reach the $1,000,000 aggregate) was available.
- Good sued for a declaratory judgment seeking the $1,000,000 Aggregate limit; RCA counterclaimed that only the $500,000 Each Occurrence/Common Cause limit applied.
- The trial court denied Good’s motion for summary judgment, held the policy unambiguous and that the lower $500,000 limit (Each Occurrence/Each Common Cause) applied, and entered final judgment. Good appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liquor Liability limit is $1,000,000 (Aggregate) or $500,000 (Each Occurrence/Each Common Cause) | Good: Policy language, read as a whole, shows $1,000,000 applies because Declarations don’t define "Each Common Cause" and form states Aggregate applies unless Each Common Cause limits apply | RCA: Policy clearly shows two limits; Declarations list Each Occurrence $500K and Aggregate $1M; Each Occurrence should be applied as Each Common Cause so only $500K is available | Court: Policy unambiguous; parties intended two distinct limits; $500,000 limit applies as Each Occurrence/Each Common Cause |
| Whether undefined term "occurrence" creates ambiguity requiring contra proferentem or extrinsic evidence | Good: Absence of a definition makes "occurrence" ambiguous; ambiguity should be construed for insured to yield more coverage | RCA: Usage of "Each Occurrence" on Declarations and Liquor Liability form context makes meaning clear; no ambiguity | Court: Term and policy as a whole are not ambiguous; no need to construe in favor of insured |
| Whether “Each Occurrence” can be equated to “Each Common Cause” | Good: Industry practice treats the terms as distinct; expert report says they are not interchangeable | RCA: Applying Each Occurrence as Each Common Cause is reasonable to give effect to both limits shown and parties’ intent | Court: Treating the Declarations’ Each Occurrence limit as the Liquor Form’s Each Common Cause limit is reasonable and necessary to effect the parties’ intent |
| Whether trial court properly denied summary judgment | Good: No genuine issue of material fact; entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for $1M | RCA: Cross-motion argued lower limit applies; factual context supports two separate limits | Court: No legal error; denied Good’s MSJ and affirmed that $500K limit applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. CNX Gas Co., LLC, 137 A.3d 597 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- D'Adamo v. Erie Ins. Exch., 4 A.3d 1090 (Pa. Super. 2010) (insurance contract interpretation principles)
- Mitsock v. Erie Ins. Exch., 909 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 2006) (courts should read policy provisions to avoid ambiguities)
- Windows v. Erie Ins. Exch., 161 A.3d 953 (Pa. Super. 2017) (ambiguous policy provisions construed for insured; parol evidence admissible)
- Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Kinney, 90 A.3d 747 (Pa. Super. 2014) (declaratory judgment order denying summary judgment can be final where it resolves claims)