Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N. J. v. Dufresne, No. 81-2684

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore GIBBONS, SLOVITER and BECKER; GIBBONS
Citation676 F.2d 965
PartiesFIREMAN'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, Appellant, v. Raymond DuFRESNE.
Docket NumberNo. 81-2684
Decision Date15 April 1982

Page 965

676 F.2d 965
FIREMAN'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, Appellant,
v.
Raymond DuFRESNE.
No. 81-2684.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued April 1, 1982.
Decided April 15, 1982.

Page 966

Charles W. Craven (argued), Jo Fineman White, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Allen L. Feingold (argued), Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before GIBBONS, SLOVITER and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Fireman's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey (Fireman's) appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Raymond DuFresne, requiring Fireman's to submit to arbitration DuFresne's claim for uninsured motorist coverage. Since the undisputed affidavits on file establish that the accident on which DuFresne's claim is based did not involve an uninsured motorist, we reverse and direct that summary judgment be entered in Fireman's favor.

I.

On June 21, 1977, DuFresne was injured in an accident occurring in Delaware, when the automobile he was driving collided with one driven by Tanye Watson. DuFresne made a claim against Watson and received a check for $25,000 from Nationwide Insurance Company in settlement. Believing that this amount did not fully compensate him for his injuries, he made inquiries concerning the insurance coverage of his employer, the Edward J. Ring Detective Agency, which owned the car DuFresne was driving at the time of the accident. Although he neither saw nor received a copy of his employer's policy issued by Fireman's before the commencement of this litigation, he did learn that the policy contained an "uninsured motorist" provision and a clause requiring arbitration of disputes regarding coverage.

Asserting that Watson was an uninsured motorist to the extent that the check from Nationwide failed to compensate him for his injuries, DuFresne made a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of Fireman's policy in April of 1980. When Fireman's denied the claim, DuFresne threatened to file an action to compel arbitration. Fireman's then filed suit to enjoin DuFresne from seeking arbitration and to obtain a declaratory judgment that he is not entitled to recover on his claim, and moved for summary judgment. Its affidavit in support of that motion alleges that the uninsured motorist provision of the policy issued to Ring reads as follows:

Page 967

I. COVERAGE U-UNINSURED MOTORISTS

(Damages for Bodily Injury)

The company will pay all sums which the insured or his legal representative shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured highway vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured highway vehicle; provided, for the purpose of this coverage, determination as to whether the insured or such representative is legally entitled to recover such damages, and if so the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured or such representative and the company or, if they fail to agree, by arbitration.

V. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS

When used in reference to this insurance (including endorsements forming a part of the policy):

"uninsured highway vehicle" means:

(a) highway vehicle with respect to the ownership, maintenance or use of which there is, in at least the amounts specified by the financial responsibility law of the state in which the insured highway vehicle is principally garaged, no bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident with respect to any person or organization legally responsible for the use of such vehicle, or with respect to which there is a bodily injury liability bond or insurance policy applicable at the time of the accident but the company writing the same denies coverage thereunder or is or becomes insolvent; or

(b) a hit-and-run vehicle;

but the term "uninsured highway vehicle" shall not include:

(i) an insured highway vehicle.

The policy's arbitration clause provides:

VI. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

F. Arbitration.

If any person making claim hereunder and the company do not agree that such person is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured highway vehicle because of bodily injury to the insured, or do not agree as to the amount of payment which may be owing under this insurance, then, upon written demand of either, the matter or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
719 practice notes
  • In re Moss, Case No.: 12-38448
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 17, 2020
    ...set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for trial"); see also Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982) ; Olympic Junior, Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc., 463 F.2d 1141, 1146 (3d Cir. 1972). If the nonmoving party's evidence is a......
  • Homel v. Centennial Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 11–1996.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • December 21, 2011
    ...Bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir.1982). Thus, “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is......
  • Thelma v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 07-1778.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • June 10, 2008
    ...merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions" to support its claim. Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. IV. DISCUSSION A. Overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act "The IDEA is a comprehensive scheme of federal l......
  • Dubose v. District 1199C, Nat. Union of Hosp., No. CIV. A. 98-2845.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • June 9, 2000
    ...The non-moving party may not rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Du Fresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d III. Discussion4 Defendant Temple argues that Dubose did not timely file a charge with the EEOC Page 410 and therefore Dubose's claims......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
732 cases
  • In re Moss, Case No.: 12-38448
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 17, 2020
    ...set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine [dispute] for trial"); see also Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. 1982) ; Olympic Junior, Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc., 463 F.2d 1141, 1146 (3d Cir. 1972). If the nonmoving party's evidence is a......
  • Homel v. Centennial Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 11–1996.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • December 21, 2011
    ...Bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir.1982). Thus, “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is......
  • Thelma v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, No. 07-1778.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • June 10, 2008
    ...merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions" to support its claim. Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir. IV. DISCUSSION A. Overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act "The IDEA is a comprehensive scheme of federal l......
  • Dubose v. District 1199C, Nat. Union of Hosp., No. CIV. A. 98-2845.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • June 9, 2000
    ...The non-moving party may not rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Du Fresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d III. Discussion4 Defendant Temple argues that Dubose did not timely file a charge with the EEOC Page 410 and therefore Dubose's claims......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT