Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Brimar Transit, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 January 2020 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-1129 |
Citation | 433 F.Supp.3d 747 |
Parties | NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BRIMAR TRANSIT, INC., Defendant, and Pittsburgh Public School District, Intervenor Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Eugene A. Giotto, Sean J. Donoghue, Pittsburgh, PA, Richard C. Mason, Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Robert A. Lebovitz, Stephen H. Lebovitz, Lebovitz & Lebovitz, P.A., Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.
This insurance coverage dispute returns to the Court on a contested motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to which Plaintiff National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, ("National"), seeks a declaration that it does not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Defendant Brimar Transit, Inc., ("Brimar"), or Intervenor Defendant Pittsburgh Public School District, (the "District"), in the underlying action styled M.M., parent and natural guardian of K.M., a minor v. Pittsburgh Public School District and Brimar Transit, Inc. , Case No. GD-18-003257, ("underlying action"), which is on the May 2020 trial list in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. (Docket No. 53). National is providing a defense to Brimar in the underlying action under a reservation of rights but is not defending the District. (Docket No. 46 at ¶¶ 15-16). Brimar and the District contest the instant motion and assert that they are both entitled to a defense and indemnification in the event they are ultimately found liable. (Docket Nos. 57-58). The motion for judgment on the pleadings has been fully briefed, (see Docket Nos. 53-54; 57-59; 65-66), and was argued at a motion hearing, (see Docket No. 75), the official transcript of which has been received and reviewed by the Court, (see Docket No. 82). At the Court's direction, the parties also submitted supplemental briefing addressing whether this federal insurance coverage case should be stayed pending the trial of the underlying action. (Docket Nos. 80; 83; 84; 89).
After careful consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the following reasons, the Court makes the following rulings. First, the rule to show cause, (Docket No. 77), is vacated because the Court agrees with the parties that a stay of these proceedings is not appropriate at this time. Second, National's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the District, (Docket No. 53), is denied because there are material issues of fact as to whether the District was named an additional insured under the Policy or is entitled to coverage under a separately issued commercial general liability policy, ("CGL Policy"). Third, the District qualifies as an "insured" under the Policy as the underlying action contains allegations that it is vicariously liable for Brimar's negligence. Fourth, National's motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the underlying action, (Docket No. 53), is denied because National has failed to demonstrate that the factual allegations set forth in the underlying action are not potentially covered by the Policy and/or subject to an exclusion. Therefore, National has a duty to defend Brimar and the District in the Court of Common Pleas and any further determinations as to the duty to indemnify either Defendant are premature given the procedural posture of the state tort action and this federal insurance coverage case.
The District and Brimar are parties to a contract pursuant to which Brimar agreed to provide student transportation services for the District during several school years. (See "Agreement", Exhibit A, Docket No. 46-1). The relevant terms and conditions of the parties' contract state that Brimar was expected to perform such services using safe vehicles and qualified drivers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code and other highway standards. (Id. ). Brimar was also required to maintain insurance coverage for its vehicles and to provide a certificate of insurance to the District each year naming the District "as additional insured, verifying coverage of $1,000,000 per accident and a $5,000,000 umbrella." (Id. at ¶¶ 17-19; 2.f). Brimar further agreed "to indemnify, defend and hold harmless" the District "against any and all loss, damage, cost and expenses which the [District] may hereafter suffer or incur arising from [Brimar's] obligations under this Agreement." (Id. at ¶ 8).
As required under its agreement with the District, Brimar obtained Policy No. 73 APB 001185 from National for the policy period of January 11, 2016 through January 11, 2017, ("Policy"). (See "Commercial Policy", Docket No. 46-2). The Business Auto Coverage Declarations ("Declarations") note that Brimar is the named insured and in the business of "school buses"; Burns & Wilcox, Inc. is listed as the producer or broker on the transaction; and the form indicates that this is a new policy, meaning that it was not renewed from a prior time period. (Docket No. 46-2 at 55). The Declarations state that the Policy provides $1,000,000 in liability coverage for a premium of $69,654 as well as smaller premium amounts for additional coverage for personal injury protection; uninsured motorists; and underinsured motorists. (Id. ). The Schedule of Covered Autos lists 26 separate vehicles covered under the Policy, all of which are described as "passenger vans" with listed seating capacities of 7 or 9 seats. (Id. at 57-58).
The relevant terms and conditions of the Policy include the following.
The Policy also contains definitions of important terms and phrases quoted throughout the policy, endorsements, and exclusions. (See Docket No. 46-2 at 59 () ). These definitions are relevant.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy
... ... Gould Elecs. Inc. v. United States , 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir ... ...
-
Ravotti v. OneJet, Inc.
...judgment as a matter of law." Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2005); Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Brimar Transit, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 3d 747, 757 (W.D. Pa. 2020); see also 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1367 (2019) ("T......
-
Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Brimar Transit, Inc.
...under the Policy, all of which are described as “passenger vans” with listed seating capacities of 7 or 9 seats. (Id. at 57-58). National, 433 F.Supp.3d at 751. relevant terms and conditions of the Policy include the following. BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM Various provisions in this policy r......
-
Kaufman v. Pa. State Police
... ... after Mr. Wiemann’s barn had caught fire, Mr. Wiemann ... left the residence and was ... Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 2005); ... Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Brimar Transit, ... ...