Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Judge v. Philadelphia Premium Outlets

June 14, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Buckwalter, S. J.


Currently pending before the Court is the Motion of Defendant ABM Mid-Atlantic, Inc. ("ABM") to Dismiss Count IV of the Cross-claim of Defendants Philadelphia Premium Outlets, Chelsea Limerick Holdings, LLC, Chelsea Property Group, Inc., and Simon Property Group, Inc. (collectively, "Chelsea Defendants"). For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.


Plaintiff Jack Judge, Jr. commenced this lawsuit against Defendants Philadelphia Premium Outlets, Chelsea Limerick Holdings, LLC, Chelsea Property Group, Inc., Simon Property Group, Inc. a/ka and/or d/b/a and/or t/a Simon Property Group, LP and/or Simon Property Group Delaware, Inc., Ann Taylor Stores Corp. a/k/a and/or d/b/a and/or t/a Ann Taylor Retail Inc. and/or Ann Taylor, Inc. and/or Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Loft Outlet Store 2909 Philadelphia Premium Outlet, ABM Inc. Building Maintenance a/k/a and/or d/b/a/ and/or t/a ABM Engineering Service Company and/or ABM Industries Inc. and/or ABM, and HGO Inc. Building Maintenance Services a/k/a and/or d/b/a and/or t/a HGO Services, Inc. and/or HGO Corporation and/or HGO Incorporated Building Services in connection with an injury he received on Defendants' property. According to the Complaint, on December 7, 2007, Plaintiff was on a walkway adjacent to Defendants' Ann Taylor Loft Outlet Store in Limerick, Pennsylvania. (Compl. ¶ 18.) While walking, he tripped over an unsecured and unfastened electrical extension cord located on the walkway of Defendants' property and connected to an illuminated holiday decoration. (Id.) He stumbled and fell to the ground, resulting in injury. (Id.)

On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff initiated litigation in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on grounds of negligence. (Id. ¶¶ 28-67.) In turn, the Chelsea Defendants filed a Cross-claim against ABM based on the facts that ABM had entered into a service agreement, wherein it agreed to provide janitorial and maintenance services for the Philadelphia Premium Outlets from October 15, 2007 to October 31, 2010, and had assisted in placing the electrical extension cords in question. (Id. ¶¶ 82, 84-85.) The Cross-claim asserted a cause of action against ABM pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1031.1, (Answer & Cross-claim ¶¶ 77-80), as well as a four-part contractual Cross-claim as follows: (1) breach of contract (id. ¶¶ 81-103); (2) indemnification (id. ¶¶ 104-107); (3) negligence (id. ¶¶ 108-115); and (4) breach of promise to obtain insurance. (Id. ¶¶ 116-124.)

Via Motion dated May 4, 2010, Defendant ABM sought to dismiss Count IV of the Cross-claim, which alleges ABM's breach of promise to obtain insurance. The Chelsea Defendants responded on May 18, 2010. The Court now turns to the merits of this Motion.


Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); see also Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005). In Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the United States Supreme Court recognized that "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. It emphasized that it would not require a "heightened fact pleading of specifics," but only "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.

Following the basic precepts of Twombly, the Supreme Court, in the subsequent case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, U.S., 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), enunciated two fundamental principles applicable to a court's review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. First, it noted that "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 1949. Thus, although "[Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 8 marks a notable and generous departure from the hyper-technical, code-pleading regime of a prior era... it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions." Id. at 1950. Second, the Supreme Court emphasized that "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id. "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in Twombly or Iqbal has altered some of the fundamental underpinnings of the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review. Arner v. PGT Trucking, Inc., No. CIV.A.09-565, 2010 WL 1052953, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2010); Spence v. Brownsville Area Sch. Dist., No. CIV.A.08-626, 2008 WL 2779079, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 15, 2008). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and need not contain detailed factual allegations. FED. R. CIV. P. 8; Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008). Further, the court must "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). Finally, the court must "determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief."

Pinkerton v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n.7 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Mayer v. Belichick, F.3d, 2010 WL 1908344, at *5 (3d Cir. May 19, 2010).


Count IV of the Chelsea Defendants' Cross-claim against ABM alleges the following: 117. In paragraph 7 of the service agreement, ABM agreed to obtain and maintain commercial general liability insurance. 118. ABM agreed to obtain commercial general liability insurance with a policy limit not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit and $2,000,000 general aggregate limit. 119. As part of the service agreement, ABM agreed to name Chelsea Limerick Holdings, LLC as additional insured on those policies of insurance. 120. ABM further agreed, "the coverage afforded under the policy(ies) will not be cancelled without thirty (30) days prior written notice (hand delivered or registered mail) to each of the additional insureds." 121. To date, no insurance company acting under any policy of insurance obtained by ABM has assumed the defense of Answering Defendants or agreed to indemnify them against the claims of the plaintiff. 122. Therefore, in the alternative to any claim that Answering Defendants are entitled to a defense and/or indemnity under any insurance policy, it is alleged that ABM has failed to obtain the insurance promised or to have the Answering Defendants identified as additional insureds under any such existing policy. 123. As a result of the foregoing conduct of ABM, Answering Defendants have been damaged, because their defense has not been assumed any such insurance policies [sic], and various amounts have been incurred, pay [sic] by, or paid on behalf of Answering Defendants in connection ...

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.