Evanston Ins. Co. v. Tristar Prods., Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:20-cv-01934,5:20-cv-01934 |
| Citation | 537 F.Supp.3d 798 |
| Parties | EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member Limited as Representative Member of Syndicate 33 at Lloyd's, Plaintiff/Intervenor, Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Plaintiff/Intervenor, v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Marc Penchansky, Edward M. Koch, White & Williams LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Margo E. Meta, White & Williams LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Michael O. Kassak, White & Williams LLP, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Plaintiff/Intervenor Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company.
Elaine Whiteman Klinger, Kennedys, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff/Intervenor Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member Limited as Representative Member of Syndicate 33 at Lloyd's.
Kevin M. Toth, Toth Law LLC, Newtown Square, PA, for Defendant.
Westchester's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 33—GRANTED
Tristar's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 39—DENIED
Evanston's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 34—GRANTED
Tristar's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 38—DENIED
Hiscox's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 36—GRANTED
Tristar's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 40—DENIED
This is a declaratory judgment action stemming from a dispute over three insurance providers’ alleged obligations to defend and indemnify their insured, Defendant Tristar Products, Inc. ("Tristar"), in underlying litigation. Tristar has been sued in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for its marketing and manufacturing of allegedly defective cookware. All three insurance providers—Evanston Insurance Company, the original Plaintiff in this action ("Evanston"), as well as Intervenor-Plaintiffs Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company ("Westchester") and Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member Limited as Representative Member of Syndicate 33 at Lloyd's ("Hiscox")—sold commercial liability insurance policies to Tristar. The providers now argue these policies do not obligate them to defend or indemnify Tristar in the Central District of California litigation. Tristar disagrees. Each party has filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, with each party seeking a declaration from this Court as to their respective obligations and entitlements relative to the underlying litigation under the several insurance policies. For the reasons set forth below, the insurance providers’ motions for judgment on the pleadings are granted, and Tristar's cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings are denied.
On or around March 3, 2020, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action1 complaint against Tristar in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. See generally ECF No. 1 in Partida, et al. v. Tristar Products, Inc. , Case No. 5:20-cv-00436 (the "Underlying Complaint").2 Tristar is a New Jersey Corporation and a lead manufacturer and marketer of "as seen on TV" products. See id. ¶¶ 33-34. Plaintiffs in the underlying action allege that Tristar manufactured, marketed, and distributed a line of purportedly non-stick cookware called "Copper
Chef Signature Cookware." Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiffs aver that "[c]ontrary to [Tristar's] representations ... and as evidenced by an endless stream of consumer complaints, Copper Chef Pans do not—and cannot—work as advertised." Id. ¶ 3. In particular, Plaintiffs claim that "Copper Chef Pans [ ] lose their non-stick functionality shortly after purchase, and scratch, chip and peel, leaving customers with an overpriced Pan to which everything sticks."3
Id. Plaintiffs state that Tristar intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts and actively deceived purchasers of Copper Chef Pans. See id. ¶¶ 4, 154-157, 160-162, 177, 181. According to Plaintiffs, a stream of negative product reviews and online criticism evidences the fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair nature of Tristar's marketing representations as to the Copper Chef Pans.4
See id. ¶¶ 49-53.
Plaintiffs assert the following ten causes of action in the underlying litigation based on the above-summarized factual allegations: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. ; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) violation of the California unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. (); (6) violation of the California consumers legal remedies law, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (); (7) violation of the California false advertising law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. (); (8) violation of New York's false and deceptive business practices law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (); (9) violation of New York's false advertising law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 (); and (10) violation of Pennsylvania's unfair trade practices and consumer protection law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1, et seq. ().
Westchester issued to Tristar two commercial general liability insurance policies under policy numbers G237603609 001 and G27603609 002 with consecutive policy terms of June 1, 2015 to June 1, 2016 (the "2015-16 Westchester Policy") and June 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017 (the "2016-17 Westchester Policy") (collectively, the "Westchester Policies"). The 2015-16 Westchester Policy provides in relevant part as follows:
ECF No. 27 at 8.5 The 2015-16 Westchester Policy further provides as follows:
The 2016-17 Westchester Policy provides as follows:
Both Westchester Policies state that " ‘[b]odily injury’ means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of these at any time." ECF No. 27 at 20; ECF No. 27-1 at 21. Both further provide that " ‘[o]ccurrence’ means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions." ECF No. 27 at 22; ECF No. 27-1 at 23. Both Policies define "[p]roperty damage" as follows:
ECF No. 27 at 22; ECF No. 27-1 at 23.
The Westchester Policies also contain numerous exclusions to coverage. With respect to bodily injury and property damage liability, the Policies provide as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Superior Well Servs., Inc.
...at 898-899 (citing L-J, Inc. v. Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 621 S.E.2d at 36 n. 4 ). See also Evanston Ins. Co. v. Tristar Prods. , 537 F. Supp. 3d 798, 814 (E.D. Pa. 2021). The Kvaerner Court then stated:The underlying suit in this case avers only property damage from poor workmans......
-
Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Connolly Contractors, Inc.
...faulty workmanship claims" in Pennsylvania, as Plaintiff notes in its reply. (Doc. No. 36 at 6 (citing Evanston Ins. Co. v. Tristar Prod., Inc., 537 F. Supp. 3d 798, 814 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (distinguishing Pottstown Industrial and holding "any distinction between damage to the [insured's] work ......
-
Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc.
...construction services and materials to construct the stucco exterior cladding system").70 See, e.g., Evanston Ins. Co. v. Tristar Prod., Inc. , 537 F. Supp. 3d 798, 817–18 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (where underlying complaint alleged damages caused by insured's use of their "own deficient products," ......