Titeflex Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance
88 A.3d 970
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- NUFIC is Titeflex's excess insurer; Kemper issued the primary CGL policy for 1997–1998 with $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate.
- Gasoline leak at Wagner's Montgomery County site triggered Underlying Actions against Wagner, Titeflex, and other involved parties; Wagner’s cross-claims against Titeflex remain pending.
- In 2007, plaintiffs' claims were settled with Kemper and Titeflex contributing $1 million; NUFIC paid over $9 million under its umbrella policies; Montgomery County court approved portions of the settlement involving minors and certain estates.
- Wagner was and remains a participant to some extent; the cross-claims by Wagner relate to damages recoverable from Titeflex, which implicates NUFIC’s duty to defend on those claims.
- Titeflex filed a declaratory judgment action in Philadelphia County (2007) seeking defense/indemnity; NUFIC answered with counterclaims; underlying disputes continued in Montgomery County; in 2010 Wagner sought to stay or dismiss participation in the declaratory action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order final and appealable? | NUFIC argues final-declaratory-order appeal under §7532. | Titeflex argues not appealable; or certain limitations apply. | Order is appealable as final under law. |
| Did Wagner's absence from the declaratory action destroy jurisdiction? | Wagner indispensable per Vale; must remain party. | Wagner's participation limited to the defense issue; not needed for all proceedings. | Temporary absence did not deprive jurisdiction; court could proceed. |
| What law governs the conflict of laws for occurrence determination? | New York’s unfortunate-event / multiple-trigger approaches may differ. | Pennsylvania does not adopt multiple-trigger here; no true conflict. | False conflict; Pennsylvania governs, applying its single-occurrence rule. |
| May an excess insurer be forced to defend where exhaustion of underlying coverage is disputed? | NUFIC cannot be forced to defend until exhaustion shown. | Wagner cross-claims fall within policy; exhaustion issue arises for defense. | NUFIC has a duty to defend Wagner’s cross-claims under the excess policy. |
| Is there exhaustion of the Kemper primary policy for the 1997–1998 year? | Exhaustion should apply to multiple years if one occurrence spans years. | Multiple-year allocation possible under NY/PA theories; not here. | Exhaustion found: one 1997–1998 occurrence with $1M per occurrence limit exhausted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Redevelopment Authority of Cambria County v. International Insurance Co., 454 Pa. Super. 374, 685 A.2d 581 (Pa. Super. 1996) (final-declaratory-order appeal when ruling on duty to defend)
- Wickett, 563 Pa. 595, 763 A.2d 813 (Pa. 2000) (pretrial declaratory-order rights are final and appealable)
- Bolmgren v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 758 A.2d 689 (Pa. Super. 2000) (partial declaratory judgment not automatically appealable)
- J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 Pa. 29, 626 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1993) (allocation of liability across multiple insurers; not toxic-tort rule here)
- Vale Chemical Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 512 Pa. 290, 516 A.2d 684 (Pa. 1986) (indispensable-party joinder principles in declaratory actions)