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.

Frederick Mutual Insurance Co. v. KP Construction

United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

May 21, 2015

FREDERICK MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff,
v.
KP CONSTRUCTION D/B/A MARK KATONA ROOFING, TEPPER PROPERTIES, INC., and JOHN PERNA, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT F. KELLY, Sr. J.

Presently before this Court is Defendant, Tepper Properties, Inc.’s (“Tepper”), Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and Plaintiff, Frederick Mutual Insurance Co.’s (“FMIC”), Response. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 17, 2015, FMIC filed a Complaint against Tepper, Defendant, KP Construction D/B/A Mark Katona Roofing (“Katona”), and Defendant, John Perna (“Perna”), seeking a declaratory judgment to determine its right and obligations under an insurance policy (the “Policy”) it issued to Katona and Perna. See Compl. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, and Tepper claims that damages are in excess of $75, 000. See 28 U.S.C. § 3332.

Underlying the instant action is a civil action currently pending in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas filed by Tepper against Katona and Perna. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A.) In that action, Tepper brought suit against Katona and Perna in connection with a contract for roofing services related to the replacement of a roof on a multi-family dwelling owned by Tepper. (Id.) Tepper claims that, instead of replacing the roof, Katona and Perna patched the existing roof, which caused damage to the building and the internal apartments. (Id.) The state court complaint (“State Complaint”) alleges damages in excess of $50, 000. (Id.) Tepper asserts that prior to filing the instant action, Katona and Perna placed FMIC on notice of the “First-Filed State Action, ” resulting in FMIC seeking to disclaim coverage under the insurance policy. (Id. at 2.)

Tepper filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on April 10, 2014. (Doc. No. 4.) FMIC filed a Response on April 29, 2015.[1] (Doc. No. 8.)

II. STANDARD OF LAW

A district court has original jurisdiction over a civil action where the litigation involves citizens of different States, and “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 3332.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) provides in relevant part:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between–
(1) citizens of different States.

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

“The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that at all stages of the litigation the case is properly before the federal court.” Samuel–Bassett v. KIA Motors Am. Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 396 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Packard ...


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.