From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Garzone

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 18, 2009
CIVIL ACTION No. 07-4767, CIVIL ACTION No. 08-3895 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2009)

Summary

holding that plaintiffs' admissions in answer to complaint were irrelevant to the analysis of whether insurer had duty to defend because of Kvaerner's "direct[ion] to exclusively consider the factual allegations in the underlying complaint"

Summary of this case from Bealer v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-4767, CIVIL ACTION No. 08-3895.

September 18, 2009


ORDER


AND NOW, this 17th day of September 2009, upon consideration of the Motions filed by the parties, the corresponding briefs, the discussion held at oral argument, and for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that

(1) Nationwide's Motion for Summary Judgment (07-4767, Doc. 47; 08-3895, Doc. 68) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum. To summarize,
(a) Nationwide's Motion is GRANTED on the duty to defend Liberty in the Maggio case;
(b) Nationwide's Motion is DENIED on the duty to defend Liberty in the Laberta and Oprea cases;
(c) Nationwide's Motion is DENIED on the duty to defend Margaret McCafferty d/b/a James A. McCafferty Funeral Home in the Wilson/Pancoast case;
(d) Nationwide's Motion is DENIED, without prejudice, on the duty to defend Margaret McCafferty d/b/a James A. McCafferty Funeral Home in the Gibson case;
(e) Nationwide's Motion is GRANTED on the duty to defend Margaret McCafferty d/b/a James A. McCafferty Funeral Home in the Laberta case.
(2) Margaret McCafferty's Motion to Sever (08-3895, Doc. 76) is DENIED, without prejudice.


Summaries of

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Garzone

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Sep 18, 2009
CIVIL ACTION No. 07-4767, CIVIL ACTION No. 08-3895 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2009)

holding that plaintiffs' admissions in answer to complaint were irrelevant to the analysis of whether insurer had duty to defend because of Kvaerner's "direct[ion] to exclusively consider the factual allegations in the underlying complaint"

Summary of this case from Bealer v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

finding that allegations of negligence should not be set aside due to the criminal convictions

Summary of this case from State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Angellilli

In Nationwide, the insurance company similarly sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Garzone when family members of decedents brought suit for their injuries resulting from the organ theft scheme.

Summary of this case from State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Angellilli
Case details for

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Garzone

Case Details

Full title:NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. GERALD GARZONE, et al., NATIONWIDE…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 18, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 07-4767, CIVIL ACTION No. 08-3895 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2009)

Citing Cases

State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Angellilli

"Pennsylvania courts have soundly rejected the contention that policy definitions of injury or bodily injury…

Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Winslow

In making this determination, the court accepts the factual allegations of the complaint as true, but need…