State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dooner
Decision Date | 04 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 2821 EDA 2017,2821 EDA 2017 |
Citation | 189 A.3d 479 |
Parties | STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Erin C. DOONER, Jean A. Fonte, Jeffrey J. Kowalski, Gary J. Fedorczyk, and Progressive Advanced Insurance Company Appeal of: Jean A. Fonte |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Theodore C. Levy, Philadelphia for appellant.
Louis E. Bricklin, Samantha D. Gioffre, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Erin C. Dooner, participating party, pro se.
Gary Fedorczyk, participating party, pro se.
Angel M.T. Webby, West Hazelton, for Kowalski, participating party.
Kimberly A. Boyer-Cohen, Eric R. Brown, Philadelphia, for Progressive Advanced Insurance, participating party.
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.
Appellant, Jean A. Fonte, appeals from the August 2, 2017 order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"). After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the following undisputed facts and procedural background of this case in its August 2, 2017 opinion:1
Trial Court Opinion ("TCO"), 8/2/17, at 1–2.
On August 2, 2017, the trial court entered an order granting State Farm's motion for summary judgment and finding that State Farm does not owe a duty of coverage in this case. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 25, 2017, followed by a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion and commit error by granting [s]ummary [j]udgment on behalf of [State Farm], improperly determining that State Farm did not owe a duty of coverage to [its] insured[,] [Ms.] Dooner, and all parties who suffered injuries through [Ms.] Dooner's negligence, thus misapplying case law and relevant precedent?
Our standard of review with respect to a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary judgment is as follows:
Byoung Suk An v. Victoria Fire & Cas. Co. , 113 A.3d 1283, 1287–88 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). Additionally, we note that the interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law that we will review de novo . See Rourke v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. , 116 A.3d 87, 91 (Pa. Super. 2015).
Here, Appellant avers that Ms. Dooner's policy with State Farm "provides coverage for a ‘non-owned car’ if the car is in lawful possession of you or any resident relative ." Appellant's Brief at 12 (emphasis in original). Appellant further notes that the policy is silent with respect to the definition of the terms "possession" and "lawful." Thus, she concludes that the policy is ambiguous and must, therefore, be construed in her favor. Id. ( ). After careful review of the record, we deem Appellant's claim to be wholly without merit.
We begin our analysis by setting forth well-established rules of insurance contract interpretation. "The task of interpreting [an insurance] contract is generally performed by a court rather than by a jury." Madison Construction , 735 A.2d at 106 (Pa. 1999).
The goal in construing and applying the language of an insurance contract is to effectuate the intent of the parties as manifested by the language of the specific policy. When the language of an insurance policy is plain and unambiguous, a court is bound by that language. Alternatively, if an insurance policy contains an ambiguous term, the policy is to be construed in favor of the insured to further the contract's prime purpose of indemnification and against the insurer, as the insurer drafts the policy, and controls coverage. Contract language is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction and meaning. Finally, the language of the policy must be construed in its plain and ordinary sense, and the policy must be read in its entirety.
Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. St. John , 630 Pa. 1, 106 A.3d 1, 14 (2014) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Wagner v. Erie Ins. Co. , 801 A.2d 1226, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2002) ( ). Moreover, a court "will not find a particular provision ambiguous simply because the parties disagree on the proper construction; if possible, it will read the provision to avoid an ambiguity." Brown v. Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Company , 157 A.3d 958, 962 (Pa. Super. 2017).
Mindful of the foregoing legal principles, it is clear that the focal point of our inquiry is the language of the insurance policy. Under the terms of the policy, State Farm will provide coverage for "damages an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of ... bodily injury to others ... and damage to property[,] caused by an accident that involves a vehicle for which that insured is provided Liability Coverage by this policy." Policy, Exhibit "E" to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, at 7 (emphasis in original). The term "insured" is defined under the policy as:
Id. (emphasis in original).
Id. at 4–5 (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, in order for State Farm to owe liability coverage in the instant case, Appellant's Dodge Stratus must qualify as a "non-owned car" of the insured, Ms. Dooner. Based on the foregoing definition, it is evident that coverage hinges on whether Ms. Dooner was in "lawful possession" of the Dodge Stratus at the time of the accident.2
To continue reading
Request your trial