The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment,
which motion was filed by plaintiff on March 19, 2004. For the reasons
expressed below, we conclude that plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. Therefore, we grant plaintiff's
This civil action arises from a dispute over plaintiff General Star
National Insurance Company's ("GenStar") duty to indemnify or defend
defendants in an underlying State court action pending in the Court of
Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. On June 13, 2003
plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this court
seeking a declaration that it is not required to indemnify or defend
defendants in the underlying State court action. On January 21, 2004 the
Answer of Defendants was filed.
On March 19, 2004 plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. On
April 2, 2004 the Response of Defendants, Palmer Township, Virginia S.
Rickert, Theodore Borek, Robert Lammi, Jeffrey Young, Robert Elliot,
Robert Wasser, and H. Robert Daws in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and
the Brief of Defendants, Palmer Township, Virginia S. Rickert, Theodore
Borek, Robert Lammi, Jeffrey Young, Robert Elliot, Robert Wasser, and H.
Robert Daws in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment were
Plaintiff argues, and defendants do not substantively dispute, that
there are no disputes as to any material fact precluding the entry of
summary judgment in this matter. The sole issue raised in this case and
at issue on this motion for summary judgment is whether, under the
applicable insurance policy, plaintiff is obligated to continue to
indemnify and defend defendants in the underlying State court action.
For the reasons which follow, we find that plaintiff is not obligated
to indemnify or defend defendants in the underlying State court cause of
action. Thus, we now grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
judgment shall be rendered where it is shown 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord
Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund v. McCormick Dray
Line, Inc., 85 F.3d 1098, 1102 (3d Cir. 1996). Plaintiff argues and defendants do not
substantively contest that there are no genuine issues of material fact.
Below, we address whether plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the pleadings, record papers, depositions and exhibits of
the parties, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact:
1. GenStar provides public officials and employment practices liability
insurance on a claims-made basis to the Pennsylvania Municipal Insurance
Program pursuant to Master Policy #NYA602601.*fn1
2. Defendant Palmer Township holds Certificate #45 (the "Policy") under
the Master Policy.*fn2
3. The Policy generally provides indemnity and defense to Palmer
Township for any claim made against the Township for "wrongful
4. Indemnity coverage is provided in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per
claim and $3,000,000.00 in the aggregate.*fn4
5. The Policy also provides coverage to "lawfully elected, appointed or
employed officials", "lawfully appointed members of the commissions,
boards or other units of ...