Little v. MGIC Indem. Corp.
Decision Date | 23 December 1986 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 86-275. |
Citation | 649 F. Supp. 1460 |
Parties | James P. LITTLE, Plaintiff, v. MGIC INDEMNITY CORPORATION, and American Casualty Company, a/k/a American Casualty Company of Reading, a subsidiary of Continental Casualty Company and CNA Financial Corp., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Frederick W. Thieman, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Michael P. Tone, Theodore A. Boundas, James A. Skarzynski, Sheldon G. Karasik, David B. Olaussen, Peterson, Ross Schloerb & Seidel, Chicago, Ill., Mark J. Gesk, Wayman, Irvin & McAuley, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
This case revolves around a Directors and Officers insurance policy ("D & O policy") purchased by Union National Bank of Pittsburgh ("UNB") for the benefit of its directors and officers. The policy was issued by MGIC Indemnity Corp., and subsequently transferred to and assumed by the American Casualty Co. Plaintiff James P. Little was a vice-president of the commercial loan department during the period the policy was in effect.
Beginning in 1983, UNB was named as defendant in a series of lawsuits brought in this court by five other banks and lending institutions.1 In each case, the underlying transactions were essentially the same; two of UNB's customers had allegedly used fraudulent letters of credit to defraud those banks and lending institutions. Plaintiff Little was named as a third party defendant by UNB in each of the lawsuits.
Here, Little is seeking a declaratory judgment, ordering defendants to pay the costs of defense and attorneys fees associated with the other ongoing cases. Defendants maintain that the D & O policy allows them complete discretion to decide whether to reimburse directors and officers as their defense expenses are incurred. Defendants have steadfastly refused to advance plaintiff's defense costs. The matter is presently before the court on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
We begin by noting that this issue has already been addressed by a number of other courts, based on D & O policies containing language essentially identical to the language of the D & O policy in this case. Two recent cases have both held that the D & O policy requires the insurer to reimburse defense costs as they accrue. Okada v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 795 F.2d 1450, 1453-55 (9th Cir.1986) ( ); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 640 F.Supp. 656, 659-60 (S.D.N.Y.1986) ( ). Both of these cases were decided on motions for summary judgment.
Several district courts which have addressed this issue have reached a different conclusion. Enzweiler v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Civil Action No. 85-99, slip op. at 2 ( ); Clandening v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., CV 83-2432-LTL, Transcript of Proceedings 7-8 (C.D.Cal. May 23, 1983) (insured's claim dismissed on finding that the insurer has no obligation to pay defense costs when incurred during litigation); Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 651 F.Supp. 474 (N.D.Okla.1986) ( ). We also note other cases which the defendant has cited in support of its position. Gribaldo, Jacobs, Jones & Assoc. v. Agrippina Versicherunges A.G., 3 Cal.3d 434, 91 Cal.Rptr. 6, 476 P.2d 406 (S.Ct.1970); California Chiropractic Association v. CNA, No. C 579 326 (Cal.Super. June 26, 1986); Continental Casualty Co. v. Board of Education, 302 Md. 516, 489 A.2d 536, 539 (Ct.App.1985); Amrep Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 81 A.D.2d 325, 440 N.Y.S.2d 244, 246 (1981).
There are well established principles of interpretation for insurance contracts under Pennsylvania law. Gene & Harvey Builders, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, ___ Pa. ___, 517 A.2d 910 (1986); Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Insurance, 503 Pa. 300, 304-305, 469 A.2d 563, 566 (1983); Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Linn, 766 F.2d 754, 760-61 (3d Cir.1985); Houghton v. American Guaranty Life Insurance Co., 692 F.2d 289, 291 (3d Cir. 1982). Insurance contracts are interpreted by the court, not a jury. Gonzalez v. United States Steel Corp., 484 Pa. 277, 398 A.2d 1378 (1979). The court must ascertain the intent of the parties as manifested by the language of the written instrument. Mohn v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, 458 Pa. 576, 326 A.2d 346 (1974).
Pennsylvania law provides that, if a provision in an insurance contract is ambiguous, it is to be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer who drafted the agreement. Mohn v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, 458 Pa. 576, 326 A.2d 346 (1974). However, if the language of the contract is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to that language, regardless of whether the insured failed to read the contract. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Insurance Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Co., 426 Pa. 453, 233 A.2d 548 (1967); Olson Estate, 447 Pa. 483, 488, 291 A.2d 95, 98 (1972) (quoting Orner v. T.W. Phillips Gas & Oil Co., 401 Pa. 195, 199, 163 A.2d 880, 883 (1960)).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has enunciated the following principle on the issue of unconscionability:
In light of the manifest inequality of bargaining power between an insurance company and a purchaser of insurance, a court may on occasion be justified in deviating from the plain language of a contract of insurance. See 13 Pa.C.S. § 2302 ( ).
Standard Venetian Blind, 503 Pa. at 307 469 A.2d at 567. See also Bishop v. Washington, 331 Pa.Super. 387, 398-400, 480 A.2d 1088, 1093-94 (1984) ( ).
1. Ambiguity and the Issue of Contemporaneous Reimbursement of Defense Costs
D & O Policy, Section 3(A)(5) (emphasis added). Finally, the D & O policy contains the following provision:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative
...blithely disclaim responsibility for the insured's enormous financial burdens while the insured must fight on. Little v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 649 F.Supp. 1460, 1468 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 789 (3d Cir.1987). The Court finds this reasoning persuasive, especially in light of the form of ......
-
PENDERGEST-HOLT, STANDFORD, LOPEZ v. Underwriters
...then insurers will be able to withhold payment in virtually every case at their sole discretion. See Little v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 649 F.Supp. 1460, 1468-69 (W.D.Penn.1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 789 (3rd Cir.1987), reh'g denied (3rd Cir. 1988); see also Enron, 391 F.Supp.2d at 574 (discussing Lit......
-
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. CJH, INC.
...1993 WL 323594 (E.D.Pa.1993) citing Ripepi v. American Insurance Cos., 349 F.2d 300, 303 (3rd Cir.1965); Little v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 649 F.Supp. 1460, 1466 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 789 (3rd Although similar, the duty of an insurer to indemnify is somewhat more limited than its dut......
-
Viola v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...until it becomes apparent that there are no circumstances under which the insurer would be responsible." Little v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 649 F.Supp. 1460, 1466-67 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 789 (3d Cir.1987). However, an insurer had no duty to defend the insured against a complaint allegin......
-
Michael D. Sousa, Making Sense of the Bramble-filled Thicket: the "insured vs. Insured" Exclusion in the Bankruptcy Context
...a bankruptcy trustee or creditors' committee. "The Large Print Giveth and the Small Print Taketh Away." Little v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 649 F. Supp. 1460, 1465 (W.D. Pa. 1986). INTRODUCTION Over the course of the past several decades, directors and officers liability insurance has become a ......
-
Emerging Issues in Directors' and Officers' Liability Insurance Coverage
...Indemnification and Liability Insurance for Directors and Officers," 33 Bus. Lawyer 1993 (1978). 3. Little v. MGIC Indemnity Corp., 649 F.Supp. 1460, 1465 (W.D.Penn. 1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 789 (3rd Cir. 1987). 4. See, Hinsey, "The New Lloyd's Policy Form for Directors and Officers Liability......
-
Footing the bill: paying the legal costs of criminal proceedings: because of the possibility that insurance will not cover defense costs, corporate counsel must take steps to protect corporate interests.
...(9.) 916 F.2d 461 (8th Cir. 1990). (10.) 787 F.Supp. 1424 (S.D. Fla. 1991), aff'd, 963 F.2d 385 (11th Cir. 1992) (table). (11.) 649 F.Supp. 1460, 1468-69 (W.D. Pa. 1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 789 (3d Cir. 1987). (12.) 787 F.Supp. at 1433. (13.) See, e.g., McCuen v. Am. Cas. Co., 946 F.2d 1401 (8......