Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hopfer

• Decision Date: 18 November 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 08-4549.
• Citation: 672 F.Supp.2d 682
• Parties: ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff v. Timothy HOPFER, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

672 F.Supp.2d 682

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff v. Timothy HOPFER, et al, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08-4549.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

November 18, 2009.

Frank S. Guarrieri, Curtin & Heefner, Morrisville, PA, for Plaintiff.

Timothy Hopfer, Frackville, PA, Linda Lee Hopfer, David Hopfer, Honeybrook, PA, Kevin Hopfer, Morgantown, PA, Christopher P. Caputo, Caputo & Mariotti, Moose, PA, pro se.

MEMORANDUM

STENGEL, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Plaintiff Allstate Insurance Company on April 29, 2009. Allstate filed a declaratory judgment complaint on September 18, 2008 seeking a declaration of its duties to defend and indemnify David, Linda Lee, Kevin, and Timothy Hopfer in an underlying state civil action against them for the death of Abigail Alexis Tagert.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 7, 2005, Ms. Tagert died at the Honeybrook, Pennsylvania home of David and Linda Hopfer, who are the named insureds under an Allstate Deluxe Homeowners insurance policy. Pl.'s Declaratory J. Compl. at ¶¶ 10, 13. Their son Timothy resided with Mr. and Mrs. Hopfer at the time of Ms. Tagert's death.¹ Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.

As a result of Ms. Tagert's death, her parents, Defendants Darlene Pfeiffer and Thomas Tagert, filed suit against the Hopfers in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. Am. Compl. of Darlene Pfeiffer and Thomas Tagert, individually and as co-administrators of the Estate of Abigail Alexis Tagert v. Timothy Hopfer, Linda Lee Hopfer, David Hopfer, and Kevin Hopfer, Docket No. 07-08771 ("Tagert Complaint").

The following facts as alleged in the Tagert complaint are crucial to the determination whether Allstate is required to defend and indemnify the Hopfers in this underlying suit. On December 6, 2005, Timothy Hopfer took a quantity of the prescription drug Dilaudid, a Schedule II controlled substance, from the Chester County Hospital. Tagert Compl. at ¶ 10. Timothy worked at the hospital as a registered nurse, but took the Dilaudid with the intention to use it for recreational purposes. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 10. That night, he took it to the Hopfer residence, where Ms. Tagert was a guest. Id. at ¶ 12. While there, he injected Ms. Tagert with Dilaudid three separate times through a "port" he had inserted into her foot. Id. at ¶ 13. Following the third injection, Ms. Tagert began to experience "labored breathing, discoloration, vomiting, and loss of consciousness." Id. at ¶ 17. Timothy was aware the third injection had contained more of the drug than the previous two, and was also aware Ms. Tagert was experiencing potentially deadly side effects. Id. at ¶ 19. Timothy attempted to resuscitate Ms. Tagert at some point following her adverse reaction. Id. at ¶ 18. However, he failed to seek medical attention for Ms. Tagert for at least another two hours and ignored the requests of another guest, Kourtney Rowe, that he do so. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23.

David, Linda, and Kevin Hopfer also became aware of the symptoms Ms. Tagert was experiencing but similarly failed to seek medical help for her for at least two hours after learning of them. Id. at ¶ 22. Ms. Tagert died at the Hopfer residence as a result of drug toxicity later that night. Id. at ¶ 24.

In connection with his actions, Timothy Hopfer was charged with and pleaded guilty to drug delivery resulting in death in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2506; theft by unlawful taking in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3921(a); and illegal manufacture, delivery, or possession of a controlled substance in violation of 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30). Pl.'s Declaratory J. Compl. at ¶ 19.

Count I of the Tagert Complaint alleges negligence on the part of Timothy Hopfer for, inter alia, engaging in dangerous activities within his home, repeatedly injecting Ms. Tagert with Dilaudid, failing to obtain medical attention for her in a timely manner following her adverse reaction, observing her condition and allowing her to "sleep it off", allowing and causing a prolonged delay in obtaining medical attention for her by "moving and cleaning" her body, and misinforming authorities about the identity and nature of the substance causing her condition. Tagert Complaint at ¶ 31(c)-(e), (g), (i), (p), (q).

Counts II and III of the Tagert Complaint allege negligence on the part of Linda and David Hopfer for, inter alia, failing to properly monitor the activities conducted in their residence by Timothy and Kevin Hopfer, allowing Timothy and Kevin to engage in activities dangerous to others, breaching their duty to safeguard guests in their home, failing to obtain medical attention for Ms. Tagert upon learning of her adverse reaction, allowing Ms. Tagert to "sleep it off", and allowing a prolonged delay in obtaining medical care for her. Tagert Complaint at ¶ 33(a), (b), (e), (g), (l), (p), ¶ 34(a)-(c),(e), (j), (m), (q).

Count IV of the Tagert Complaint alleges negligence on the part of Kevin Hopfer for, inter alia, engaging in behavior that was dangerous to others, failing to promptly obtain medical attention for Ms. Tagert at the first sign of her adverse reaction, allowing and causing a prolonged delay in obtaining care for her, and failing to inform authorities of the nature of the substance with which she had been injected. Tagert Complaint at ¶ 37(a)-(c), (i), (q), (r).

Counts V, VI, VII, and VIII of the Tagert Complaint allege wrongful death against Timothy, Linda, David, and Kevin Hopfer and seek damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8301.

Allstate Insurance Company seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that it does not have a duty to defend or indemnify the Hopfers in the civil action filed by Darlene Pffeiffer and Thomas Tagert in state court. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the citizenship of the parties is diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

II. STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. In order to prevail, the movant must show that "no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir.2008) (citing Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290-91 (3d Cir.1988)). In reviewing a 12(c) motion, the court must view the facts in the pleadings and the inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

In determining whether the Hopfers' policy requires Allstate to defend or indemnify them in the Tagert action, the parties do not dispute that Pennsylvania law must be applied.² Under Pennsylvania law of insurance contract interpretation, the insurance policy should be read as a whole and construed according to its plain meaning. See Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brotech Corp., 857 F.Supp. 423, 427 (E.D.Pa.1994), aff'd, 60 F.3d 813 (3d Cir. 1995). The primary goal in interpreting an insurance policy is "to ascertain the parties' intentions as manifested by the policy's terms." Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S. Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 589 Pa. 317, 331, 908 A.2d 888, 897 (2006) (citing 401 Fourth St. v. Investors Ins. Group, 583 Pa. 445, 446, 879 A.2d 166, 170 (2005)). When the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to that language. Id.

"A carrier's duties to defend and indemnify an insured in a suit brought by a third party depend upon a determination whether the third party's complaint triggers coverage." Mut. Benefit Ins. Co. v. Haver, 555 Pa. 534, 538, 725 A.2d 743, 745 (Pa. 1999) (citing Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Allen, 547 Pa. 693, 706, 692 A.2d 1089, 1095 (Pa.1997)). In determining whether the insured's policy covers the action brought, courts look to the factual allegations contained in the underlying complaint. Id. (citing Scopel v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 698 A.2d 602 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997)). Coverage is not triggered by the official cause of action pled; courts must take care to look to the underlying facts and not to base a finding of coverage solely on the causes of action contained in a skillfully-worded complaint. Id.

"An insurer's duty to defend . . . arises whenever an underlying complaint may `potentially' come within the insurance coverage." Frog, Switch & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 742, 746 (3d Cir.1999). The duty to defend, therefore, may arise where the duty to indemnify does not later come to fruition; the former duty is based on the possibility that an underlying complaint will come within the policy's coverage. See Erie Ins. Exch. v. Claypoole, 449 Pa.Super. 142, 156, 673 A.2d 348, 355-56 (Pa.Super.1996). "If the complaint . . . avers facts that would support a recovery covered by the policy, then coverage is triggered and the insurer has a duty to defend until such time that the claim is confined to a recovery that the policy does not cover." Allen, 692 A.2d at 1095.

To qualify for coverage in the first place, the insured's underlying complaint must contain allegations of an "occurrence" under the policy. Even if a court finds that the underlying event constitutes an occurrence, the insurer may still establish that it is not required to defend because the underlying action falls under a policy exclusion precluding coverage for intentional acts.

A. Coverage For An Occurrence

The "Family Liability Protection" section of the Hopfer's policy states that:

Allstate will pay damages which an insured person becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury or property damage arising from an occurrence to which this policy applies, and is covered by this part of the policy.

Def.'s Mot. For J. On The Pleadings, Ex. C. An "insured person" is defined as "you [the holder(s) of the policy] and, if a resident of your household (a) any relative; and (b) any dependent person in your care." Id. Bodily...