26 Pa. D. & C.5th 225
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2012Background
- Consolidated declaratory judgment action by Harleysville and Travelers to determine duties to defend ETC in underlying personal injury action.
- Underlying accident occurred November 13, 2007; Chatley injured while ETC controlled traffic and an employee, Schneider, was involved near construction signage.
- ETC was insured by Harleysville (CGL with Auto Liability Exclusion and an Other Insurance clause) and Travelers (Business Auto Policy with Employer Liability Exclusion and a duplicate recovery clause).
- Court previously denied summary judgment, holding both insurers had a duty to defend ETC; appeals filed by Harleysville and Travelers under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
- Court analyzed whether exclusions and coverage provisions defeat defense duties by comparing underlying complaint allegations to policy terms; found both insurers have a duty to defend ETC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harleysville’s Auto Liability Exclusion applies. | Harleysville argues ETC’s allegations arise out of auto use, triggering exclusion. | Harleysville contends the joinder complaints focus on site safety, not use of a vehicle. | Auto Exclusion does not apply; allegations may implicate coverage. |
| Whether Harleysville’s Other Insurance provision eliminates duty. | Harleysville asserts excess over other insurance excludes duty to defend. | Harleysville argues other insurance applies, reducing Harleysville’s duty. | Other Insurance clause does not alleviate Harleysville’s duty. |
| Whether Travelers’ Limit of Insurance provision bars defense. | Travelers claims UIM settlement exhausts policy limits, precluding defense. | Two tortfeasors/policies mean limits do not bar defense. | Limit of Insurance does not bar defense; multiple policies/tortfeasors present. |
| Whether Travelers’ Employer Liability Exclusion applies. | Travelers says injuries to Chatley as ETC employee fall within exclusion. | Face of joinder complaints does not clearly show Employee Liability exclusion applies. | Employer Liability Exclusion does not clearly bar defense; duty remains. |
| Whether joinder pleadings trigger Travelers’ duty to defend under its Auto Policy. | Joinder alleges use of a covered auto by ETC. | Allegations include use-related claims that may fall within policy. | Joinder allegations potentially fall within Travelers’ auto coverage; duty to defend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Allen, 547 Pa. 693 (Pa. 1997) (duty to defend framework clarified (Pa. 1997))
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Claypoole, 673 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. 1996) (insurer duties under policy language and complaint scrutiny)
- Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 589 Pa. 317, 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) (cannot look beyond allegations to determine defense duty)
- Jerry’s Sport Ctr., Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 606 Pa. 584, 2 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2010) (duality of coverage and duplicative recovery discussed)
- Paylor v. Hartford Ins. Co., 536 Pa. 583, 640 A.2d 1234 (Pa. 1994) (duplication/exclusion concepts in Pennsylvania)
- Consenza v. 258 F.3d 197, 258 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2001) ( Third Circuit on duplicative recovery and coverage)
- Lebanon Coach Co. v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 675 A.2d 279 (Pa. Super. 1996) (application of excess/other insurance principles)