Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers
| Decision Date | 27 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 27 WAP 2006.,No. 22 WAP 2006.,No. 25 WAP 2006.,No. 31 WAP 2006.,No. 28 WAP 2006.,No. 20 WAP 2006.,No. 30 WAP 2006.,No. 23 WAP 2006.,No. 32 WAP 2006.,No. 29 WAP 2006.,No. 18 WAP 2006.,No. 33 WAP 2006.,No. 19 WAP 2006.,No. 21 WAP 2006.,No. 26 WAP 2006.,No. 24 WAP 2006.,18 WAP 2006.,19 WAP 2006.,20 WAP 2006.,21 WAP 2006.,22 WAP 2006.,23 WAP 2006.,24 WAP 2006.,25 WAP 2006.,26 WAP 2006.,27 WAP 2006.,28 WAP 2006.,29 WAP 2006.,30 WAP 2006.,31 WAP 2006.,32 WAP 2006.,33 WAP 2006. |
| Citation | 938 A.2d 286 |
| Parties | DONEGAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. Richard BAUMHAMMERS, Andrejs Baumhammers, Inese Baumhammers, May-Lin Kung, Administratrix of the Estate of Ji-Ye Sun, and May-Lin Kung in her own right, Sanford Gordon, Administrator of the Estate of Anita Gordan, and Sanford Gordan in his own right, Zetta Renee Lee, Administratrix of the Estate of Garry Lee, Jane/John Doe, Administrator of the Estate of Anil Thakur, Bang Ngoc Ngo, Administrator of the Estate of Thao Q. Pham, Sandip Patel, and United Services Automobile Association, Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Stephen John Poljak, Richard Bruce Morrison, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Pittsburgh, for United Services Auto. Ass'n., appellee.
William R. Caroselli, Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Conboy, L.L.C., Pittsburgh, for Sanford Gordon, appellee.
Christina Kaiser Hurnyak, Tarasi & Tarasi, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Sandip Patel, appellee.
Richard A. Baumhammers, appellee pro se.
James Joseph Ross, Bowers, Ross and Fawcett, L.L.C., Ambridge, for Zetta Renee Lee, appellee.
William R. Tighe, Richard B. Tucker, Tucker Arensberg, P.C., Pittsburgh, for Andreja Baumhammers & Inese Baumhammers, appellees.
Charles A. Knoll, Vincler Knoll, P.C., for Bang Ngoc Ngo et al., appellees.
William Peter Chapas, Wallace, Barozzini, Harvey & Zimmaro, P.C., for May-Ling Kung, appellee.
Arthur L. Bugay, Galfand Berger, L.L.P., Philadelphia, for PA Trial Lawyers Ass'n, appellee amicus curiae.
Jacquelyn Jean Anger, Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman & Rohn, P.C., Philadelphia, for Greene Tweed & Co., Inc., Appellee amicus curiae.
BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER and BALDWIN, JJ.
Appellant, Donegal Mutual Insurance Company ("Donegal") asks this court to determine whether multiple shootings perpetrated by Richard Baumhammers ("Baumhammers"), an adult, resulting in the death of five individuals and serious bodily injury of a sixth, qualifies as an "accident" pursuant to Donegal's insurance policy, requiring Donegal to provide coverage to Andrejs and Inese Baumhammers, the parents of Richard Baumhammers. Donegal additionally asks this court to determine whether the alleged negligence of Andrejs and Inese Baumhammers and the subsequent shootings by their son constitute a single "occurrence" under Donegal's insurance policy or whether each shooting of the victims constituted a separate occurrence. We affirm the Superior Court's decision that an "accident" happened, but reverse the Superior Court's finding that the instant facts support a finding of multiple occurrences.
On April 28, 2000, Baumhammers left his home and shot and killed his neighbor, Anita Gordon, at her home which he then set on fire. He then drove to Scott Township where he killed Anil Thakur and seriously wounded Sandip Patel, after which he drove to Robinson Township and shot and killed Ji-Ye Sun and Thao Pak Pam. Finally, Baumhammers drove to Center Township where he shot and killed Garry Lee. The entire series of events occurred within a two hour time period. On May 9, 2001, Baumhammers was convicted of first degree murder with respect to the five victims who had died, and aggravated assault and attempted homicide for the shooting of Patel.
Patel and the personal representatives of the estates of the deceased victims ("Plaintiffs") filed complaints against Baumhammers and his parents in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, consolidated at GD 00-10558. The complaints allege the following omissions by Parents: (1) failure to procure adequate mental health treatment for Baumhammers, (2) failure to take Baumhammers' handgun away from him, and (3) failure to notify the appropriate authorities of the fact that Baumhammers possessed a handgun. Donegal v. Baumhammers, GD 01-5671, GD 00-18199, slip op. at 6 (Ct. Com. Pleas of Allegheny Cty. Aug 7, 2002) ("Trial Court op.").1
Andrejs and Inese Baumhammers ("Parents") are insured under a homeowners policy issued by Donegal. The policy covers Parents as well as any relative residing in the household. Baumhammers resided in his parents' home at the time of the shooting incidents. The Donegal insurance policy provides coverage for claims brought against an insured for damages resulting from bodily injury caused by an "occurrence." R. 92. The policy describes its coverage limits for bodily injury as follows:
Limit of Liability. Our total liability . . . for all damages resulting from any one "occurrence" will not be more than the limit of liability . . . as shown in the Declarations. This limit is the same regardless of the number of "insureds," claims made or persons injured. All "bodily injury" and "property damage" resulting from any one accident or from continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions shall be considered to be the result of one "occurrence."
The limit of liability for personal injury under the Donegal policy is $300,000 per "occurrence." R. 118. The policy defines an "occurrence" as an "accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results, during the policy period in . . . [b]odily injury or [p]roperty damage." R. 81. The term "accident" is not defined in the policy. Pursuant to the policy, Donegal agreed to "[p]rovide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice, even if the suit is groundless, false or fraudulent." R. 93.
On March 22, 2001, Donegal filed a complaint for declaratory judgment requesting that the court enter a judgment that Donegal had no duty to defend or indemnify Baumhammers or Parents in the civil actions filed against them by Plaintiffs since the shootings were not accidental in nature but were the result of intentional conduct which the policy did not cover.2 R. 106. Donegal additionally asserted, in the alternative, that if Baumhammers or Parents were entitled to have Donegal defend and potentially indemnify them, the shootings were the result of a single "occurrence." On September 6, 2001, Donegal filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it was not required to defend or indemnify Baumhammers or Parents. Parents filed cross-motions for summary judgment requesting that the trial court find that Donegal was obligated to defend them and provide indemnification in the event that they are found to be negligent in the actions brought against them by Plaintiffs. Parents additionally asserted that the injuries to each of the individual plaintiffs constituted a separate and distinct "occurrence" for purposes of coverage.
By order dated December 19, 2001, the trial court granted Donegal's motion with respect to Baumhammers, declaring that Donegal had no duty to defend or indemnify him, and denied Donegal's motion with respect to Parents, determining that Donegal did have a duty to defend and indemnify Parents for six individual "occurrences." On June 6, 2002, following the grant of a motion for reconsideration filed by Donegal, the trial court reinstated its December 19, 2001 order.
On appeal, a panel of the Superior Court initially reversed the trial court's determination. That decision was withdrawn however and following re-argument en banc, the court affirmed the order of the trial court determining that Donegal was required to provide coverage to Parents and that Baumhammers' independent acts of shooting each individual victim resulted in six separate "occurrences" for purposes of coverage. This Court then granted Donegal's request for allowance of appeal.
Preliminarily, we note that "[t]he interpretation of an insurance contract regarding the existence or non-existence of coverage is `generally performed by the court.'" Minnesota Fire and Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 579 Pa. 333, 344, 855 A.2d 854, 861 (2004). Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 589 Pa. 317, 331, 908 A.2d 888, 893 (2006). Our purpose in interpreting insurance contracts is to ascertain the intent of the parties as manifested by the terms used in the written insurance policy. 401 Fourth Street, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Group, 583 Pa. 445, 454, 879 A.2d 166, 171 (2005). "When the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language." Kvaerner, 589 Pa. at 331, 908 A.2d at 897. However, "when a provision in the policy is ambiguous, the policy is to be construed in favor of the insured to further the contracts prime purpose of indemnification and against the insurer, as the insurer drafts the policy and controls coverage." Id.
In determining whether an insurance company is responsible to defend its insured, we observed in Gene's Restaurant Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 519 Pa. 306, 308, 548 A.2d 246, 247 (1988) that:
[a]n insurer's duty to defend an action against the insured is measured, in the first instance, by the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings. . . . In determining the duty to defend, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Winslow
...decided by the court. Gardner v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 544 F.3d 553, 558 (3d Cir.2008) (citing Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 595 Pa. 147, 938 A.2d 286, 290 (2007) ); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Treesdale, Inc., 418 F.3d 330, 334 n. 8 (3d Cir.2005) ; Reliance Ins. Co. v. Moessne......
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Stevens & Ricci Inc.
...courts should treat the term as “refer[ing] to an unexpected and undesirable event occurring unintentionally ....” 595 Pa. 147, 938 A.2d 286, 292 (2007).[T]he key term in the definition of the “accident” is “unexpected” which implies a degree of fortuity. An injury therefore is not “acciden......
-
Erbe v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
...Cir.1990)). 16 In this regard, Plaintiff turns to the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Baumhammers, 595 Pa. 147, 938 A.2d 286 (2007), in which the court The Donegal homeowners insurance policy provides no definition of the term "accident." Ho......
-
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Am. Nuclear Insurers
...policy. When the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language.Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 595 Pa. 147, 938 A.2d 286, 290 (2007) (internal quotation marks, citations, and modifications omitted). The question presented in this case is one of ......
-
Pennsylvania Makes Its Mark On National Chinese Drywall Coverage Dispute With 'One Occurrence' Decision
...the number of occurrences for purposes of insurance liability, and specifically, the decision in Donegal Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286 (Pa. 2007), in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tackled this issue for the first time. As Judge Pratter explained, the Baumhammers court ......
-
Two Cases Analyze Faulty Workmanship Claims Under CGL Policies, With Contrary Results
...the parents liable for damages resulting from a shooting rampage perpetrated by their child. See Donegal Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286, 293 (Pa. 2007). The Third Circuit held that "the crucial inquiry dictating whether a general liability insurer must defend its insured under......
-
Chapter 6
...Beneficial Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., 241 P.3d 710 (Or. 2010) ( en banc). Pennsylvania: Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286 (Pa. 2007). South Carolina: Crossmann Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 S.C. LEXIS 2 (S.C. Jan......