Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TRUSTEES OF THE UNIV. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LEXINGTON

March 15, 1989

THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA


Marvin Katz, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: KATZ

MARVIN KATZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 In May, 1987 plaintiff, which owns and operates the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania ("HUP"), paid $ 500,000 to Victor and Arcadia Melendez as its portion of a settlement of a suit which had been commenced by the Melendezes against HUP and another party in the Court of Common Pleas. In April, 1988 plaintiff instituted this action against its excess insurance carrier, defendant Lexington Insurance Company ("Lexington"), claiming that $ 400,000 of the settlement amount was covered under its policy with Lexington. In June, Lexington filed a third-party complaint against plaintiff's primary insurance carrier, Insurance Company of North America ("INA"), alleging that the entire settlement amount was covered under plaintiff's policy with INA, *fn1" and that as a result, plaintiff's settlement of the Melendez lawsuit gave rise to no liability on the part of Lexington.

 The case is currently before the court on INA's motion for summary judgment against Lexington, and Lexington's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff. *fn2" For the reasons that follow, I shall grant summary judgment on behalf of INA against Lexington, and deny Lexington's motion for summary judgment.

 1. Under the insurance contract between INA and HUP, INA agreed to provide three basic types of coverages: property insurance (Section I), comprehensive crime insurance (Section II), and liability insurance (Section III). Under the liability insurance provisions of the policy, INA agreed to provide to HUP eight types of separately identified and defined coverages, designated as Coverages A through H. All parties agree that Coverage D, Malpractice Liability, is the only coverage applicable to this dispute. Under that liability coverage, INA agreed to pay

 
all sums which the Insured shall become legally obligated to pay with respect to occurrences anywhere during the policy period:
 
* * * *
 
D. Malpractice Liability
 
As damages because of injury, including death, sustained by any person, or property arising out of:
 
1. Malpractice, error or mistake committed during the policy period:
 
* * * *
 
c. in handling or performing autopsies on deceased human bodies . . . .

 Stipulation of Facts, Exhibit 1 at pages 24-25.

 2. The parties stipulate that any and all claims made by the Melendezes against HUP relevant to this action were in the nature of damages because of injury sustained by them, or for injury to property, arising out of the handling of a deceased human body from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.