The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-2022 CivilMoTORT$TS MUTUAL I~suRANCE : ~O. 95-2022 ClV~L TERM COMPANY' De~endant --. ~R S~ l~f~d~996, upon consideratiOn o~ A~D ~OW, this ~or Summary judgment, and ~or the reaSOnS stated p%ainti~'s MotiOn motiOn is DE~TED' the in the accompanying opinion, BY THE COURT, ~ ence ~' wieder, E~q[ Lawr "l~ace & Nur~c~ McNees, Wa eet ? O. Box 1166 Str 66 ENGLAND JEEP/EAGLE INC., Plaintiff Vo MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-2022 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ ~day of March, 1996, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is DENIED. Lawrence R. Wieder, Esq. McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, ~4esley Oler,/~., J. William P. Douglas, Esq. Douglas, Douglas & Douglas 27 West High Street, P.O. Box 261 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant · rc ENGLAND JEEP/EAGLE INC., Plaintiff Ve MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-2022 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS and OLER, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. This is an action by an insured against an insurer for breach of contract and for bad faith under Section 8371 of the Judicial Code. For disposition at this time is the insured's motion for summary judgment. The factual record consists basically of Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant's answer with new matter and Plaintiff's reply to new matter.~ Because the record in its present state does not show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the motion will be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is England Jeep/Eagle, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business at 6039 Carlisle ~ Although various other items, including certain deposition testimony and a copy of part of the insurance policy in question are appended to Plaintiff's brief, these can not be considered part of the record. See Freed v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 3397 Civil 1992 (Cumberland Co. February 6, 1995); cf. McAllonis v. Pryor, 301 Pa. Super. 473, 448 A.2d 5 (1982). NO. 95-2022 CIVIL TERM Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.2 Defendant is Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation having a place of business at 471 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio.3 Plaintiff is an automobile dealership, handling new and used vehicles.4 Defendant issued an insurance policy relating to Plaintiff's business, with a term of one year from August 2, 1993, through August 2, 1994.5 The policy included a "Garage Coverage Form,"6 which was modified by an endorsement titled "False Pretense Coverage."7 The endorsement provided coverage to Plaintiff in the event that it suffered a loss from buying an automobile from someone who did not own it.8 During the term of the policy, Plaintiff purchased eleven 2 Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 1; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 1. 3 Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 2; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 2. 4 Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 4; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 3. s Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 4; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 4. 6 Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 5; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 5. 7 Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 6; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 6. Id. 2 NO. 95-2022 CIVIL TERM stolen vehicles from a certain company.9 According to Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff paid over three hundred thousand dollars for the vehicles, had no reason to believe they were stolen, and leased or sold them to customers;1° these allegations are not admitted by Defendant.11 After the term of the policy, Pennsylvania State Police told Plaintiff the vehicles were stolen and had to be returned to the victims of the thefts.12 According to Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff subsequently replaced all of the vehicles for its customers and suffered a loss in excess of $50,000;~3 these allegations have also not been admitted by'Defendant.TM Defendant declined to reimburse Plaintiff for any loss under the policy, maintaining that no loss had occurred during the one- year period of coverage.~s The validity of Plaintiff's contractual and bad faith claims is dependent, inter alia, upon a favorable 9 Plaintiff' s Complaint, paragraph 9. 10 paragraph 9; Defendant's Answer, 13 14 15 Answer, paragraphs 17-21. Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraphs 10-13. Defendant's Answer, paragraphs 10-13. Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 14; Defendant's Answer, paragraph 14. Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 15. Defendant's Answer, paragraph 16. See Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraphs 17-21; Defendant's NO. 95-2022 CIVIL TERM interpretation of the insurance policy as it relates to time of occurrence of a loss, as well as proof of damages. The pleadings, however, do not contain a copy of the entire policy, including a portion being relied upon by Defendant,~ nor do they contain any admissions from which a damage figure could be extracted. DISCUSSION Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035(b) provides that summary judgment "shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." A court should grant summary judgment "only in the clearest of cases, where the right is clear and free from doubt." Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 488 Pa. 198, 204, 412 A.2d 466, 468 (1979). In determining the effect of an insurance policy, courts have recognized the importance of considering "the entire transaction, and not just a technical, precise and narrow interpretation of one clause of the insurance contract." Everett Cash Mutual Ins. Co. v. Krawitz, 430 Pa. Super. 25, 29, 633 A.2d 215, 217 (1993). In this case, several factors militate against granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. First, it would not be ~ See Brief of Defendant Motorist[s] Mutual Insurance Company, at 4. 4 NO. 95-2022 CIVIL TERM appropriate to interpret the insurance policy at issue when the entire policy is not part of the record. Second, the admissions contained in the record do not lend themselves to a satisfactory resolution of the issue of damages. And, third, the record is almost totally devoid of facts bearing upon the issue of bad faith. For these reasons, it cannot be said that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that Plaintiff's right is clear and free from doubt. entered: The following order will therefore be ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 1996, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is DENIED. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Lawrence R. Wieder, Esq. McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Attorney for Plaintiff William P. Douglas, Esq. Douglas, Douglas & Douglas 27 West High Street, P.O. Box 261 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant : rc