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.

Doherty v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 6, 2017

MARY LOU DOHERTY, JAMES DOHERTY, and JOHN DOHERTY, Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant

          MEMORANDUM

          Gerald J. Pappert Judge

         Plaintiffs Mary Lou Doherty and her sons James and John own numerous properties which they rent, primarily to college students.[1] This case pertains to two of them, halves of a twin dwelling unit with a shared wall located at 949 and 951 Glenbrook Avenue, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Bryn Mawr is located in Radnor Township. Doherty acquired title to the properties from her mother and has been responsible for managing and maintaining them since 1975 or 1976. See (Doherty Dep., ECF No. 132, Ex. LL, at 15:1-18:7).

         Doherty insured the properties with Allstate in 2005. In 2014, tenants complained about their condition and Radnor Township cited Doherty for numerous violations of the Township's Rental Housing Code. The Township subsequently revoked the Dohertys' rental licenses for the properties and then sued the Dohertys for, among other things, refusing to allow inspections of the units.

         Doherty thereafter sued Allstate claiming that the insurer was required to compensate her for the damage which precipitated the notices of violations and revocations. She also contends that Allstate is obligated to defend her family against the Township's lawsuit. Doherty claims as well that in its dealings with her, Allstate violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1, -9.2(a), and the Commonwealth's bad faith statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371.

         After an extensive procedural history, Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of Doherty's claims. The Court grants the motion and dismisses the case for the reasons which follow.

         I.

         A.

         In November 2005, Doherty began researching online for landlord property insurance policies. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 27-28.) She found a brochure for Allstate's Landlords Package Insurance Policy (“the Landlords Policy” or “the Policy”). (Id. ¶ 29); (ECF No. 144-11.) On December 1, 2005, Doherty met with Thomas McKeon (“Mr. McKeon”) of the McKeon Agency and Lynn Fredricks, the McKeon office manager, to discuss her insurance needs. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 30); (McKeon Dep., ECF No. 132, Ex. V, at 16:15-18.) The McKeon Agency (“McKeon”) is a small office of sales agents who are licensed to sell Allstate insurance policies and, to a limited extent, provide customer service on those accounts.[2] See (McKeon Dep., at 18:8-9, 27:11-14, 42:8-13, 53:2-7). McKeon does not, however, handle claims or have any role in the claims adjusting process. See (id. at 42:8-13, 53:2-7). If a customer purports to have a claim, McKeon's role is to help connect them to Allstate's claims department. See (id.). This can take the form of directly transferring a customer who is on the telephone to the claims department, informing the customer of the different ways in which he can open a claim or opening a claim for the customer themselves. See (id. at 42:8-44:3). In sum, Mr. McKeon testified that “claims is a whole different animal. So however the claims department handles that -- we are sales and service. So we are geared more toward selling the thing, taking care of the customer, and if they have a claim situation handing them off to claims.” (Id. at 53:2-7.)

         Doherty alleges that at her December 1 meeting with Mr. McKeon and Fredricks, she was seeking the “best possible landlord-related property insurance.” (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 27.) Though it is unclear from her Second Amended Complaint exactly what Doherty communicated to Mr. McKeon and Fredricks, Doherty claims she “explained to Defendant's Agents the concerns and needs of the Plaintiffs as identified in the foregoing paragraphs, ” informed them that she wanted to insure ten or more properties and stated that if Allstate was unable to provide such assurances of coverage, she would be leaving to continue her search. (Id. ¶ 31.) Doherty contends that in response, “Defendant's Agents assured [her] that its [Landlords Policy] was the best possible coverage” for the properties, (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 32), and “made representations that its [Landlords Policy] had better benefits, advantages, and conditions” than those offered by other insurers, (id. ¶ 40).

         On or around December 19, 2005, McKeon employees inspected the properties and executed individual declaration pages for the policies covering each. (Id. ¶¶ 37-38); (ECF No. 144-12.) According to Doherty, McKeon provided these initial declaration pages to Doherty in a folder “to support and confirm the representations being made to Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 39.) Doherty accepted the documentation, left McKeon, stopped looking for other insurance providers and cancelled all of Plaintiffs' existing policies. (Id. ¶¶ 43-45.) Doherty claims she “justifiably relied on the representations of Defendants that the desired coverages would be expressed in and through the contracts.” (Id. ¶ 47.) Doherty also claims that McKeon “failed to advise [her] of any exclusions which were applicable” and “failed to give [her] a copy of the insurance contracts, or give [her] the opportunity to review the insurance contract.” (Id. ¶¶ 46, 48.) Doherty received a copy of the policy in the mail a few weeks later. See (Doherty Dep., at 46:6-20); (McKeon Dep., at 47:12-48:2). Thereafter, Doherty renewed the Policy annually, each time receiving renewal declaration pages[3] and a copy of the same Policy. See (Doherty Dep., at 101:16-102:1); (Tr. of Hr'g 2, at 8:3-15, ECF No. 172); (ECF No. 1, at 3).

         B.

         The Landlords Package Insurance Policy, Policy Number 908879295, covers the Glenbrook properties.[4] The “Landlord Package Policy Declarations” contains an overview of the “Policy Coverages and Limits of Liability.” (ECF No. 132-4.) Page 3 of the declarations states: “Your Landlords Package policy consists of this Policy Declarations and the documents listed below. Please keep these together.” (Id.) It then lists four documents: Landlords Package Policy Form AS84, Notice of Terrorism Insurance Cov. Form AP3337-2, Pennsylvania LPP Amendatory End. AS122-2, and Standard Fire Policy Provisions form AS277-2. (Id.) The Policy thus consists of five separate documents, two of which are relevant here: the declaration pages, which contain the Policy Declarations, and the Landlords Package Policy Form AS84, which contains the policy terms, conditions and exclusions.

         i.

         The Landlords Policy offers myriad “coverages, ” three of which-coverages A, B and D-are at issue in this case. See (ECF No. 132-5, at 7). Coverage A is titled “Dwelling Protection.” It covers property damage to an insured's dwelling and attached structures at the residence premises. (Id. at 6.) Coverage B is titled “Other Structures Protection” and covers property that is separated from an insured's dwelling by a clear space. (Id.) The Policy enumerates what losses are insured under each of the various coverages. It states:

We will cover sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property described in Coverage A-Dwelling Protection and Coverage B- Other Structures Protection except as limited or excluded in this policy.

(Id. (emphasis in original).)

         The Policy then sets forth various limitations and exclusions. Under the heading “Losses We Do Not Cover Under Coverages A and B, ” the Policy explains that Allstate does not cover losses to the property caused by, among other things:

Water or any other substance on or below the surface of the ground, regardless of its source. This includes water or any other substance which exerts pressure on, or flows, seeps or leaks through, any part of the residence premises. (Id. at 7, ¶ 4.)
. . . .
Enforcement of any building codes, ordinances or laws regulating the construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, placement or demolition of any building structure, other structure or land at the residence premises. (Id. at 7, ¶ 6.)
. . . .
Wear and tear, aging, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, or latent defect . . . mechanical breakdown . . . Growth of trees, shrubs, plants or lawns whether or not such growth is above or below the surface of the ground . . . Settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roofs or ceilings . . . Insects, rodents, birds or domestic animals. (Id. at 8, ¶ 13.)
. . . .
Seepage, meaning continuous or repeated seepage or leaking over a period of weeks, months, or years, of water, steam or fuel . . . from a plumbing, heating, air conditioning or automatic fire protection system or from within a domestic appliance; or . . . from within or around any plumbing fixtures, including, but not limited to, shower stalls, shower baths, tub installations, sinks or other fixtures designed for the use of water or steam. (Id. at 9, ¶ 16.)

(Id. at 7-9 (emphasis in original).)

         The Policy also excludes from coverage losses caused by vandalism, defined in the Policy as “willful or malicious conduct resulting in damage or destruction of property. Vandalism does not include theft of property.”[5] (Id. at 3, ¶ 12; id. at 9, ¶ 18.)

         Similarly excluded from coverage are losses caused by “[a]ny act of a tenant, or guests of a tenant, unless the act results in sudden and accidental physical damage” caused by specifically enumerated sources.[6] (Id. at 9, ¶ 19.)

         Losses caused by “faulty, inadequate or defective . . . maintenance” are not covered. (Id. at 10, ¶ 21.) Nor are losses “[c]onsisting or caused by mold, fungus, wet rot, dry rot or bacteria, ” including “any loss which, in whole or in part, arises out of, is aggravated by or results from mold, fungus, wet rot, dry rot or bacteria.” (Id.)

         ii.

         Coverage D covers specified losses of fair rental income and will be discussed in more detail infra in subsection III.A.vi. (Id. at 14.) Section III of the Policy, titled “Optional Protection, ” provides, as its title suggests, optional coverage which the insured can purchase at an additional cost:

The following optional coverages may supplement coverages found in Section I or Section II and apply only when they are indicated on the Policy Declarations. The Provisions of this policy apply to each Optional Coverage in this section unless modified by the terms of the specific Optional Coverage.

(ECF No. 132-6, at 27.)

         On December 20, 2005, Doherty's Policy was amended to include, for an additional premium, the optional Building Code Coverage. See (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 49); (ECF No. 144-15); (Tr. of Hr'g 2, at 77:15-85:25). This provision will be discussed in more detail infra in subsection III.A.vi.

         C.

         On or around October 21, 2013, Doherty leased 949 and 951 Glenbrook Avenue to two groups of tenants, Villanova University students Scott DiSciullo, Patrick O'Brien and others.[7] (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 54); (ECF No. 93-2.) The leases were to run from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2015, though the tenants did not plan to move in until late August. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 55); (ECF No. 93-2.) On August 22, 2014, the incoming tenants alerted Radnor Township Police to extensive damage to the properties, [8] including but not limited to broken windows, buckled hardwood floors, water stains and ceiling damage, removed and damaged fixtures and doors, detached ceiling lights and smoke alarms, water damage in the basement, peeling paint, an overgrown lawn, dirty floors and surfaces, a broken stove and refrigerator and trash and mice droppings. See (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 65); (Daly Dep., ECF No. 132, Ex. V, at 15:12-16, 18:13-17); (ECF Nos. 93-3, 93-4, 93-17, 93-18). The police came to the units and completed two incident reports, which included the written statements from DiSciullo and O'Brien.[9] (ECF No. 93-3.) The police also notified the Radnor Township Department of Community Development. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 59); (Daly. Dep., at 18:18-19:3.) Radnor Township Code Official Ray Daly then inspected and photographed the properties and began preparing a list of property damage and code violations. See (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 60); (ECF No. 93-4); (Daly Dep., at 12:19-22, 20:6-15); (ECF Nos. 132-21-132:42). Daly testified that the descriptions of the properties' damaged conditions contained in the tenants' written statements to the police comported with his recollection of what he observed at the properties on August 22. (Id. at 15:12-16, 18:13-17); (ECF No. 93-3.)

         On August 27, 2014, Daly returned to the premises to post notifications of violation which listed, and directed Doherty to correct, various code infractions. See (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 61-62); (ECF No. 93-4); (Daly Dep., at 20:16-22). Doherty claims she did not see any posted notifications. See (Doherty Dep., at 183:10-11). In an August 31 letter, the tenants told Doherty that they were breaking their leases because the premises were uninhabitable. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 63); (ECF No. 96-1.) The tenants also sent Doherty an e-mail to this effect on the same day. (ECF No. 132-19.) In a September 5, 2014 letter, the law firm representing Radnor Township notified Doherty that her student rental licenses for the 949 and 951 Glenbrook Avenue homes were being revoked due to building code violations and the Dohertys' failure to permit the Township to perform mandated inspections for several years.[10] (ECF No. 132-43.) Doherty claims she received the tenants' August 31 letter on September 6 and immediately went to the properties, at which time she discovered the damage. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 64).

         D.

         i.

         On September 6, Doherty faxed and sent by certified mail a letter to McKeon and to Allstate's corporate office in Northbrook, Illinois. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 73-74); (ECF No. 93-6.) The subject line read: “RE: notice of claim under policies (908 879295) for 949-51 Glenbrook Avenue, Bryn Mawr Pa.” The letter states:

Dear Allstate and Allstate McKeon Agency:
Please be advised of a claim being made for property damage which has occurred at the above properties. In addition, the properties have been vacated by the tenants so that there is also claim being made by your insured, James and John Doherty and Mary Lou Doherty for loss of rent.

(Id.)

         Allstate put the letter in the file of a pre-existing claim involving the Dohertys (“the Chester file”).[11] See (ECF No. 132-2, at 18); (ECF Nos. 132-55, 132-56); (Erskine Dep., ECF No. 132, Ex. W, at 25:15-24, 39:16-43:1).

         However, the record shows that McKeon employee Kathy Wagner received Doherty's letter on September 9 and on the same day left a voicemail for Doherty seeking more information about the alleged loss. (ECF No. 132, at 15.) Specifically, McKeon's files include a copy of Doherty's September 6 letter on which Wagner wrote: “9/9 - Rec'd - no claim recorded. L/M for Mary Lou Doherty.”[12] (ECF No. 132-44.) At her deposition, Doherty testified that she does not know whether she received a voicemail from McKeon on September 9, 2014. See (Doherty Dep., at 211:24-213:13). In any event, no claim was opened at that time.

         ii.

         On September 24, 2014, Radnor Township sued the Dohertys in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas based upon the properties' condition and the Dohertys' alleged failure, for several years, to permit the Township to inspect the premises in accordance with the Township's Rental Housing Code. (ECF No. 93-5.) The Complaint, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit G to Doherty's Second Amended Complaint, details the Township's efforts to inspect the Glenbrook Avenue units going back to 2008 and the fact that in 2009 the court ordered the Dohertys to permit the inspections. (Id. ¶¶ 14-32.) According to the Complaint, however, all of the Township's letters to the Dohertys seeking to schedule inspections went either challenged or unanswered and the Township did not succeed in inspecting the properties.[13] (Id.)

         The Township's Complaint details the August 2014 communications Township officials had with the tenants of the Glenbrook properties. (Id. ¶¶ 33-36.) It states that after contacting the Township with their complaints, the tenants allowed the Township to inspect the properties and that, upon inspection, the Township discovered numerous violations of the Township's Property Maintenance Code and ultimately found both units to be “unfit for human habitation.” (Id. ¶¶ 37-43.) Finally, the Complaint states that “[o]n September 5, 2014, the Township Solicitor forwarded a letter to the Dohertys stating that their rental licenses for the Properties for the 2014-2015 year have been revoked.” (Id. ¶ 44.)

         E.

         On October 4, 2014, Doherty faxed and sent by certified mail another letter to McKeon asking the company why it had failed to respond to her September letter and how the claim could be adjusted. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 80-81); (ECF No. 93-8.) She also sent a copy of the letter by certified mail to Allstate, which Allstate claims was again misfiled in the Chester file.[14] (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 83); (ECF No. 93-8); (ECF No. 133, at 18); (ECF No. 132-55). In her Second Amended Complaint, Doherty claimed that McKeon received the letter the same day and did not respond to the follow-up request. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 82, 85.) The record shows, however, that McKeon received Doherty's letter on October 8, 2014 and that Wagner called and spoke with Doherty the same day. (ECF No. 133, at 15.) Allstate produced, from McKeon's files, a copy of Doherty's October 4 letter with a handwritten note by Wagner stating that she spoke with Doherty and told her that she could set up a claim by calling 1-800-ALLSTATE.[15] (ECF No. 132-45.) Wagner also followed up the conversation with an e-mail to Doherty, again instructing Doherty to file a claim by calling the hotline and following the prompts. (ECF No. 132-46.) Though Doherty repeatedly claimed that her letters went unanswered altogether, see, e.g., (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 101); (Pls.' Am. Compl., ¶ 66, ECF No. 66), her story changed after Allstate produced evidence of the phone call and e-mail from Wagner. At her deposition, Doherty conceded that she spoke with someone from McKeon on October 8. (Doherty Dep., at 218:21-219:17.) Though she only “sort of” recalled the details of the conversation, she stated that her notes from that conversation, which she accidentally placed in her file related to the Chester case, [16]said: Tom McKeon, call 1-800-ALLSTATE, prompts. See (id. at 218:21-220:14). When asked whether she followed Wagner's instructions, Doherty claimed that she attempted to utilize the 1-800-ALLSTATE hotline but was unable to get through and concluded that it was a non-functioning number.[17] In any event, a claim was not opened at this time and Doherty made no further attempts to contact Allstate or McKeon until July of 2015.

         F.

         In the interim, Doherty hired John Rush, a home repair contractor, to assess the damage, prepare an “Estimate of Repairs” and fix the properties. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 87); (ECF Nos. 93-17, 93-18.) Rush worked for Doherty from October 2014 through May of 2015 and allegedly performed $32, 252.00 worth of repairs. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 87-88); (ECF Nos. 93-17, 93-18.) Doherty testified that Wayne Bevilaqua and Mike Gormley also did work on the property during this time.[18] (Doherty Dep., at 237:11-15.) Though the house was not “the same as it was pre-loss, ” Doherty testified that the properties had been repaired and “Rush had done what he could to mitigate it.” (Id. at 162:14-19, 233:1-10.)

         In November 2014, Doherty received inquiries about leasing 951 Glenbrook from a group of prospective tenants, among them Devin Good. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 90.) Undeterred by the Township's prior revocation of her rental licenses, Doherty leased the unit to Good and two other Villanova students, with the lease to run from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016. (ECF Nos. 93-19, 93-20.) According to Doherty, the prospective tenants “inspected the property on several occasions, expressed their satisfaction with the premises, and between February and June 2015, paid their respective portions of the security deposits, accepted the keys, and commenced moving into the properties.” (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 91); (ECF Nos. 93-19, 93-20.) A written statement provided by Devin Good to the Radnor Police tells a different account:[19]

Mary Lou and James Doherty of Havertown, PA owning/representing the property at 951 Glenbrook Avenue, Bryn Mawr, PA entered into a lease agreement with me and (my father as a signatory) early in the year of 2015. Three months of rent were paid plus a full month of security deposit whereas the lease agreement should have commenced on June 1, 2015 and ending on May 31, 2016. Mary Lou and James Doherty failed to supply the keys to said premises until late June thereby denying me access and living accommodations that I paid for most of June. After receiving the keys in late June I attempted to move in during the second week of July. Upon entering the premises, the conditions were deplorable. Active leaking septic pipes in the basement, black mold throughout, exposed wiring, overflowed and nonfunctioning toilet, missing or smoke detectors five plus years past expiration to name a few of the conditions. We also discovered shortly after that Radnor Township had denied application for said property to be used as a rental prior to the commencement of my lease arrangement - the Dohertys were aware of this Town order, the deplorable and unsafe conditions but continued to take and cash rental checks and hide both facts from me. When speaking with the Town shortly after my attempt to move in they also said we can't live in the house due to the aforementioned conditions and our safety as we described.

(ECF No. 132-48.)

         According to Doherty, “[o]n July 2nd, 2015, Plaintiffs unexpectedly received notification and lock-out of the premises at issue from the Local Municipality, being the Township of Radnor, alleging that the premises at issue was in violation of Local Building Codes and had not been inspected.” (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 103); (ECF No. 132-47.) Then, on July 11, Doherty contends that “the tenants of Plaintiffs, through Devin Good, claimed to have problems with the premises at issue which were untrue and not even possible.”[20] (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 105.)

         On July 30, 2015, Doherty faxed and sent by certified mail another letter to McKeon, complaining about Allstate's refusal to acknowledge the claim. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 108); (ECF No. 93-11.) She also sent a copy of the letter by certified mail to Allstate's corporate office. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 109); (ECF No. 93-11.) She informed Allstate that her damages were now almost $400, 000.00 and, for the first time, that Radnor Township's September 2014 lawsuit against her had triggered Allstate's duty to defend. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 110); (ECF No. 93-11.)

         Allstate opened its claim file for the Glenbrook properties on August 7, 2015. (ECF No. 132-73.) The first entry in the claim log is dated that day and states that the insured sent “a very large package of legal documents stating claim was filed in September and Allstate never responded.” (Id. at 5.) An entry by an Allstate employee reflects that Allstate contacted Doherty on August 7 and noted that she was “very upset and would like to speak to another customer service rep.” (Id. at 4.)

         On August 8, 2015, Tiara Myrick, an Allstate claims adjuster, called Doherty. (Id.) She did not reach Doherty so she left a voicemail message. (Id.); (Myrick Dep., ECF No. 132, Ex. AA, at 79:14-19, 85:23-86:21.) In the message, Myrick provided Doherty with her First Party Claim Number, 0379581976. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 112); (ECF No. 132-73); (Myrick Dep., at 85:23-86:21.) That day, Myrick wrote in the claim log: “Called insured left a vm/m regarding the claim that was submitted. Left my name, #, and office hours for insured to contact me.” (ECF No. 132-73, at 3.) Myrick left Doherty another voicemail to this effect on August 11. (Id.) (Myrick Dep., at 86:2-87:5.) Doherty did not call Myrick back. She instead sent a letter on August 11 to McKeon (by fax) and Allstate (by certified mail). (ECF No. 132-74); (Myrick Dep., at 76:22-87:5.) In her letter, Doherty stated that Myrick left her a message regarding her claim and gave her a callback number that was different from a prior number she had been given. (ECF No. 132-74.) She then writes: “[t]here seems to be some confusion in Allstate's claims handling process” and requests that someone “look into this by August 17, 2015 and get back to [her].” (Id.)

         Myrick testified that she then contacted McKeon to see if they could assist her in contacting the insured or provide her with an alternate phone number for Doherty. (Myrick Dep., at 89:4-90:10.) The claim log shows that on August 12 Myrick spoke to Lynn Fredricks from McKeon, who told Myrick that Doherty “will not respond to anyone's phone call.” See (ECF No. 132-73, at 3); (Myrick Dep., at 89:3-90:10, 106:8- 107:16). According to the entry, Fredricks told Myrick that “she [had] tried to call the insured and get a feel for what the claim is being filed for, but the insured only responds with numerous legal documents.” (ECF No. 132-73, at 3.) According to the claim log, Myrick called Doherty again on August 12 and left another voicemail: “Called the insured explained that I did receive the docs that were sent to her agent for me. I explained that I have been trying to reach her for the last few days .. left a vm/m with my name, #, and office hours.” (Id.); see also (Myrick Dep., at 90:11-22). On August 13, 2015, Myrick sent Doherty a letter confirming that she had been assigned to handle the claim, stating that she had tried and been unable to reach Doherty by phone and requesting that Doherty return her call. See (ECF No. 132-75); (ECF No. 132-73, at 3); (Myrick Dep., at 90:23-92:7). Doherty nevertheless repeatedly claimed that neither Allstate nor McKeon ever responded to her August 11 letter. See (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 115-116); (ECF No. 66, ¶¶ 96-97).

         Having heard nothing from Doherty and unaware that Doherty sued Allstate in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas the day before, Myrick again called and left a message for Doherty on August 19. See (ECF No. 132-73, at 3); (Myrick Dep., at 92:8-21). On August 21, 2015, Myrick emailed Doherty stating that she was the claims adjuster and had “attempted to contact [Doherty] on several occasions via phone and letter correspondence to discuss the details of your claim in depth.” (ECF No. 132-76.) The e-mail states: “[i]t is imperative that I make voice to voice contact with you to get accurate loss facts regarding the claim that you submitted” since “[t]he claims process is reliant on the information that is shared between ‘you' the insured and ‘me' the claims adjuster.” (Id.) She provided her contact information and asked Doherty to contact her. (Id.) Again, Doherty did not do so. See (Myrick Dep., at 92:22-94:7).

         On August 26, 2015, Myrick called Doherty yet again. See (id. at 94:8-95:15); (ECF No. 132-73, at 2). The log states: “Called the insured. Mrs. Insured answered the phone, explained that she could not speak with me because she was in pending litigation and hung up the phone - at this time we'll get a manager involved for the appropriate steps.” (ECF No. 132-73, at 2.) The file was then given to Clare Erskine, an Allstate litigation representative. (Myrick Dep., at 44:22-47:24, 64:8-23). Erskine reviewed the file and wrote a note in the claim log on August 27, 2015 stating: “Apparently litigation has been filed against Allstate in this matter as stated by the insured.” See (ECF No. 132-73, at 2). She then reviewed the Chester file to make sure it had nothing to do with the property claim, at which point she found the letters Doherty had previously sent. See (Erskine Dep., at 25:15-24, 39:16-43:1); (ECF Nos. 132-55, 132-56).

         G.

         Doherty herself represented the Plaintiffs when she filed their initial Complaint in this case in Delaware County.[21] The Complaint alleged that Allstate breached the insurance contract by failing to pay for covered losses. (Pls.' Compl., ECF No. 1.) Though the Complaint was vague with respect to the factual circumstances surrounding the alleged losses, it did include two purported dates of loss, August 27, 2014 and July 2, 2015. (Pls.' Compl., ¶¶ 9, 15.) With respect to both dates, the Complaint states:

On [date], while Allstate's [] Renewal Policy was in full force and effect, the owners suffered physical loss and damage to the insured property, believed to be the result of a peril insured against under the policy issued by Allstate resulting in damage to the insured premises Glenbrook as well as loss of rent totaling in excess of [amount].

(Id.) Again, August 27, 2014 was the date on which Daly posted his notifications of violations at the premises and July 2, 2015 is the date Doherty “unexpectedly received” notification from Radnor Township “locking her out” of the properties for code violations. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 61-62, 103); (ECF No. 93-4); (Daly Dep., at 20:16-22); (ECF No. 132-47.)

         Allstate removed the case on September 16, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) At some point, Allstate's counsel contacted Doherty requesting clarification on the basis of the lawsuit. On October 15, 2015, Doherty sent counsel a letter purporting to explain her claim and provide “an overview of the loss that may be helpful to you - which spans over five years.” (ECF No. 132-80.) The overview, however, merely recounted the history of disputes between Doherty and Radnor Township, culminating in the revocation of Doherty's rental licenses. See (id.). The letter did not contain any information about the alleged property damage, the alleged cause of the losses or the factual circumstances forming the basis of her suit against Allstate. See (id.).

         The Court held a Rule 16 conference on October 26, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) In her capacity as Plaintiffs' counsel, Doherty was questioned by the Court and provided responses on the record.[22] (ECF No. 132-81.) Doherty explained that there was friction between her and Radnor Township concerning the properties and posited that the damage to the properties may have been caused by Radnor Township officials in retaliation for prior decisions by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, stating: “I think Radnor had a key to the property and they shook it apart or whatever you want to call it.” See (id. at 11:19-13:10, 18:19-19:2). She identified August 27, 2014 as the date when the supposedly sudden and accidental loss occurred and repeated her belief that Radnor Township officials were responsible for “negligence and/or just shaking things apart so that you could say that the place was in violation of maintenance codes of Radnor Township.” (Id. at 12:21-25, 16:12-17:12.) When asked if she was contending that Radnor Township was responsible for the damage to the properties, Doherty said: “They were the last ones in there, had access to it, and testified in a court proceeding in Delaware County that they were in the properties through mid-September 2014.” (Id. at 13:11-16.) Allstate's counsel pointed out that the policy expressly excluded from coverage losses caused by vandalism, to which Doherty responded: “Okay, I consider that to have been vandalism, in my personal opinion.” (Id. at 18:14-19:7.) Though the Court repeatedly probed Doherty as to why she was suing Allstate for damage allegedly caused by Radnor Township or her tenants, since such perils were expressly excluded from coverage under the Policy, Doherty was unable to articulate an explanation. See (id. at 13:11-14:13, 16:3-19:7, 19:20-20:23, 22:4-8, 26:22-28:10, 31:7-32:14).[23]

         The day after the Rule 16 conference, Allstate's counsel, citing Doherty's description of the circumstances surrounding the alleged losses and information Allstate had learned when it received the Radnor Township Police incident reports, asked her to withdraw the lawsuit. See (ECF No. 29-11). He followed up with a similar e-mail on October 28, 2015. (Id.) On November 12, 2015, Allstate's lawyer sent Doherty another letter indicating that her ongoing issues with Radnor Township did not constitute a legally cognizable claim under the Landlords Policy. See (ECF No. 29-13).

         H.

         Allstate subpoenaed records related to the Dohertys' properties from various entities and individuals, including Radnor Township, the Radnor Township Police Department, Villanova University, Philadelphia Electric Company, Haverford Township and Devin Good. Allstate received, inter alia, a package of documents from Good, including his written statement to the police, various letters sent by his father to Doherty and the photographs he took of the property in July 2015; the Radnor Township Complaint; the 2009 Common Pleas Court Order compelling the Dohertys to allow the Township to inspect the properties; the September 5, 2014 and July 2, 2015 notices from Radnor Township revoking Doherty's rental licenses; various complaints about Doherty submitted to Villanova by students and parents alleging poor maintenance of rental properties and misconduct as a landlord[24] (in renting the properties at issue and others); pictures of the damage taken by Daly on August 22, 2014; the August 27, 2014 notifications of violation letters; and four incident reports filed with the Radnor Police-two by DiSciullo and O'Brien in August 2014, one by Good in July 2015 and one by the parent of a previous tenant of 951 Glenbrook in 2006.[25] See (ECF No. 29, at 4-5); (ECF Nos. 132-10-132-12, 132-14-132-54).

         On December 10, 2015, counsel for Allstate wrote Doherty a letter enclosing the subpoenaed records from Villanova. See (ECF No. 29-14). The letter states that the “records show that the properties were uninhabitable prior to the dates of loss listed in the complaint.” (Id.) On December 17, 2015, after receiving additional subpoenaed documents from the Radnor Police, counsel again wrote Doherty. (ECF No. 29-15.) He enclosed the four police reports and stated that the records showed that the tenants had been unable to move in to the properties in August 2014 and July 2015, that Doherty had been informed of the property damage five days before the purported date of loss and that there had been complaints about maintenance issues dating back to 2006. (Id.)

         On April 4, 2016, after receiving the documents from Devin Good, defense counsel wrote Doherty again, stating: “We recently received these documents from Devin Good and the Radnor Police Department. It is clear that the damages alleged in the Complaint pre-exist the purported date of loss.” (ECF No. 29-16.) Doherty then retained counsel who entered his appearance on May 18, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) On June 13, 2016, Doherty filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, seeking to add claims under the bad faith statute, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371, as well as the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201-1, -9.2(a). (ECF No. 41.) The Court granted the motion and in her Amended Complaint, Doherty alleged that Allstate violated the bad faith statute by failing to open a claim in a timely manner, failing to investigate the claim and refusing to pay for covered losses without a reasonable basis. She also alleged that Allstate, through McKeon, violated the UTPCPL by misrepresenting to Doherty the terms and benefits of the Landlords Policy. Though the Amended Complaint remained vague about the types and causes of losses Doherty allegedly sustained, Doherty claimed that “Defendant misrepresented the benefits, advantages, conditions, and terms of its policy so as to make Plaintiffs believe that they would be covered for losses which are the basis of their Complaint.” (ECF No. 41, ¶ 118.)

         On August 10, Allstate filed a motion to dismiss Doherty's UTPCPL claim, Count III of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 67.) On September 27, 2016, the Court granted Allstate's motion and gave Doherty leave to file a Second Amended Complaint with more specific allegations as to the alleged misrepresentations and the manner in which they were made. (ECF No. 90.) Doherty filed her Second Amended Complaint on October 11. (ECF No. 92-1.) Allstate filed another motion to dismiss Count III on November 1. (ECF No. 99.)

         ii.

         Doherty was deposed on November 15, 2016. Allstate's counsel asked Doherty about the circumstances surrounding the alleged August 27, 2014 loss:

Counsel: All right. So the date of August 27, 2014, the date that you said that on August 27, 2014 the owner suffered physical loss and damage to the property, the physical loss and damage to the property you're referring to was the inspection by Ray Daly of Radnor Township Code Enforcement?
Doherty: No. It wasn't the inspection, it was the information as to the condition.
Counsel: Okay. What caused the condition?
Doherty: I would assume somebody damaged the property. It was human.
Counsel: All right. What date did that occur?
Doherty: Some time on or about August 27th. I would assume it would have been before Ray Daly would have written his report. Maybe they damaged it after. I don't want to be sarcastic but you never know.
Counsel: Who caused the loss to your property?
Doherty: The only people that I know were the tenants and Ray Daly and possibly whomever else they had with them, family.
. . . .
Counsel: Okay. What is the cause of the damage to the property?
Doherty: Tenant abuse I would assume is about the best way to describe it. Not unless Ray Daly did it, you know, I wouldn't rule it out. Because I've had inspectors knock a hole in the wall to check the insulation supposedly.
(Doherty Dep., at 32:11-33:8, 34:3-9.) The parties returned to this topic later in the deposition:
Counsel: And what caused those conditions was it vandalism?
Doherty: Okay. I consider it to have been abuse of the property by a [sic] either the tenants, their guests, or possibly code officials, but somebody was there. I believe it was human.
Counsel: The conditions as -- Doherty: It wasn't the wind and it wasn't the rain.
Counsel: Okay. The conditions as described by Ray Daly and photographed by Ray Daly and the letters dated August 27, 2014, you believe that to be the result of tenant abuse from either the tenants or Radnor Township?
Doherty: I believe it occurred while they had custody and control of the property, that's the only way I can put it.
. . . .
Counsel: All right. And on August 27, 2014 there wasn't any weather-related event that caused damage to the property, right?
Doherty: Not to my knowledge. (Id. at 81:18-83:7.)
Counsel also attempted to discern the circumstances surrounding the alleged loss on July 2, 2015, the same date that Radnor Township notified Doherty (for the second time) that her rental licenses were not being renewed:
Counsel: So what's the physical loss and damage of the insured property that you suffered as the owner on July 2, 2015?
Doherty: I went over there and I believe the tenants were in there. Somebody was in there.
Counsel: Somebody was in there on July 2, 2015?
Doherty: Yeah. Yes. Excuse me.
Counsel: Your license to rent had been revoked by Solicitor Rice in September of 2014, correct?
Doherty: No. He just thought he had. Unfortunately he doesn't have the authority to do it. So let's just not get overboard.

(Id. at 57:21-58:9.)

         iii.

         On December 6, 2016, Doherty filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss Count III, (ECF No. 116); Allstate replied on December 14, (ECF No. 125). On January 13, 2017, before the Court could rule on the motion to dismiss, Allstate filed its motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 132.) On January 19, 2017, Doherty purported to “verify” the allegations in her Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 135.) Doherty responded to the summary judgment motion on February 4, 2017, (ECF No. 144), and Allstate filed its reply on February 24, 2017, (ECF No. 152). The Court heard oral argument on March 7 and March 15, 2017.[26] (ECF Nos. 153, 172.) With leave of Court, Doherty filed her surreply brief in opposition to summary judgment on March 8, 2017. (ECF No. 162.) The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and the record extensively.

         II.

         Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Smathers v. Multi-Tool, Inc./Multi-Plastics, Inc. Emp. Health & Welfare Plan, 298 F.3d 191, 194 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party will not suffice; there must be evidence by which a jury could reasonably find for the non-moving party. Id. at 252. The Court's role at the summary judgment stage “is not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether . . . there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Id. at 249. In making this determination, “the court is required to examine the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, and resolve all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2007). However, the party opposing summary judgment must identify evidence that supports each element on which it has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

         III.

         In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, Doherty contends that Allstate breached the insurance contract by both refusing to pay for covered losses and failing to defend her in the lawsuit brought by Radnor Township. (ECF No. 92-1, ¶¶ 125, 126.) Where federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, as it is here, the Court applies the choice-of-law rules of the state in which the Court sits. Canal Ins. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 435 F.3d 431, 434 (3d Cir. 2006) (citations and quotations omitted). Under Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules, an insurance contract is governed by the law of the state in which the contract was made. Id. “An insurance contract is made in the state in which the last act legally necessary to bring the contract into force takes place.” Id. Here, the parties agree that the insurance contract was made in Pennsylvania and, consequently, Pennsylvania substantive law applies.[27] (Tr. of Hr'g 2, at 16:25-17:7.)

         A.

         Doherty contends initially that Allstate breached the contract by refusing to pay for covered losses.[28] To prove a breach of contract under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must establish “(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3) resultant damages.” Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs have proven the existence of a contract between them and Allstate-the Landlord Package Insurance Policy.[29]

         With respect to proving a breach, the general rule in Pennsylvania is that the insured has the burden “to establish coverage under an insurance policy.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cosenza, 258 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir. 2001). Put differently, “the insured bears the burden of proving facts that bring its claim within the policy's affirmative grant of coverage.” Koppers Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 98 F.3d 1440, 1446 (3d Cir. 1996). If (and only if) the insured does so, the burden shifts to the insurer to establish an applicable exclusion to coverage. Cosenza, 258 F.3d at 206; see also Koppers, 98 F.3d at 1446 (“[T]he insurer bears the burden of proving the applicability of any exclusions or limitations on coverage, since disclaiming coverage on the basis of an exclusion is an affirmative defense.”). Exclusions are “strictly construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured.” Cosenza, 258 F.3d at 206-7. If the insurer demonstrates that an exclusion is triggered, the burden shifts back to the insured to show either that the exclusion does not apply or that an exception to the exclusion applies. Spector v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 451 F. App'x 130, 136 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Air Prods. & Chems., Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 25 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Northern Ins. Co. v. Aardvark Assocs., Inc., 942 F.2d 189, 195 (3d Cir. 1991).

         Doherty makes four arguments as to why the alleged losses are covered under the Policy: (1) the Policy is an “all-risk” policy and therefore she need only prove that losses occurred in order for them to be covered; (2) even if she is required to prove that the losses were sudden and accidental to trigger coverage, she has done so through her testimony and that of her proposed expert; (3) the losses are covered under the Policy's provisions relating to building codes and lost rental income; and (4) under the reasonable expectations doctrine, her expectation that the Policy would include coverage for losses caused by tenant abuse, vandalism and building code violations defeats even the unambiguous language of the Policy. The Court examines each argument in turn.

         i.

         Doherty's lawsuit is predicated, first and foremost, on the assertion that the Landlords Policy is an “all-risk” policy. An “all-risk” policy is a special kind of insurance policy that “covers every kind of insurable loss except what is specifically excluded.” Betz v. Erie Ins. Exch., 957 A.2d 1244, 1255-57 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 815 (8th ed. 2004)); see also § 148:50 Nature and scope of coverage, 10 Couch on Ins. § 148:50 (“A property insurance policy which covers ‘physical loss or damage to property insured from any external cause' is properly construed to be an ‘all-risk' policy.”).

         In other words, a typical “all-risk” policy, by its terms, states that it covers any kind of loss from any external cause as long as it is not specifically excluded. See PECO Energy Co. v. Boden, 64 F.3d 852, 856-57 (3d Cir. 1995) (policy insured “against all risks of physical losses or damage however caused” unless excluded); Intermetal Mexicana, S.A. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 866 F.2d 71, 74-75 (3d Cir. 1989) (policy covered “all risks of direct physical loss or damage from any external cause” except those causes specifically excluded); Easy Corner, Inc. v. State Nat'l Ins. Co., Inc., 154 F.Supp.3d 151, 154-55 (E.D. Pa. 2016) (policy insured against “direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss” where any cause of loss was covered unless excluded).

         The benefit to a plaintiff-insured with an “all-risk” policy is that in order to carry her initial burden of “proving facts that bring its claim within the policy's affirmative grant of coverage, ” Koppers Co., 98 F.3d at 1446, she need only prove that she suffered a loss to the insured property. See Easy Corner, Inc., 154 F.Supp.3d at 154 (“In other words, all losses are covered unless specifically excluded, so Plaintiff need only show that a loss occurred to meet its burden.”); see also Miller v. Boston Ins. Co., 218 A.2d 275, 279 (Pa. 1966) (“It is axiomatic that plaintiff must show that the loss falls within the risks insured against, but it is also axiomatic, that it is for the defendant to show that the loss was not due to one of the risks insured against but rather to an excepted cause. It would seem that all plaintiff need show in such a case is a loss, since losses from all causes are covered.”). Doherty thus argues that since the Landlords Policy is an “all-risk” policy, she need only prove a loss occurred in order to shift the burden to Allstate to prove an applicable exclusion. Doherty supports her assertion that the Policy is an “all-risk” policy with two arguments.

         1.

         Doherty first contends, citing Easy Corner, 154 F.Supp.3d at 154-55, that the Landlords Policy's language is identical to insurance contracts that have been deemed “all-risk” policies by other courts. See (Tr. Of Hr'g 1, at 12:10-16:8); (ECF No. 144-2, at 6-7). This is incorrect. Unlike other “all-risk” policies, the Landlords Policy does not purport to cover all physical losses from any cause unless excluded; rather, it unambiguously narrows its coverage to “sudden and accidental direct physical loss to property . . . except as limited or excluded in this policy.” (ECF No. 132-5, at 7); Cf. Boden, 64 F.3d at 856-57 (above); Intermetal Mexicana, S.A., 866 F.2d at 74-75 (above); Easy Corner, Inc., 154 F.Supp.3d at 154-55 (above). Thus, to fall within the Landlords Policy's grant of coverage, the insured's losses must, at a minimum, be sudden and accidental. The language contained in the Landlords Policy is materially different from and not as broad as that contained in typical “all-risk” policies. At oral argument, Plaintiffs' counsel acknowledged that by the Policy's own terms, it does not cover all losses from all causes not specifically excluded: “And I stand corrected that it doesn't cover everything -- but it covers a very good bit amount of the circumstances.” (Tr. Of Hr'g 1, at 15:9-13.)

         Though the Landlords Policy is not a typical “all-risk” policy because it does not cover “all losses unless excluded, ” it does provide “all-risk” coverage with respect to “sudden and accidental losses, ” all of which are covered unless excluded. Thus, whereas a plaintiff with a standard “all-risk” policy can shift the burden to the insured to prove an exclusion by merely proving a loss to insured property, Doherty can only do so by showing a sudden and accidental loss to insured property. See, e.g., Wehrenberg v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 2:14-01477, 2017 WL 90380, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2017) (granting summary judgment where plaintiff subject to identical policy language failed to show that the loss was sudden and accidental); Hamm v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 908 F.Supp.2d 656, 667 (W.D. Pa. 2012) (requiring plaintiffs subject to identical policy language to show that the losses were sudden and accidental in the first instance); see also Raschkovsky v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 15-0021, 2015 WL 9463882, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2015) (same); Garrison Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Silva, No. 1:15-8, 2015 WL 13081330, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Sept. 24, 2015), aff'd, 652 F. App'x 240 (5th Cir. 2016); Babai v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 12-1518, 2014 WL 12029279, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2014); Nicholson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 979 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1061 (E.D. Cal. 2013); Capriotti v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 11-7779, 2012 WL 3887043, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 2012); Schaber v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 06-6007, 2007 WL 4531707, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2007); Tinucci v. Allstate Ins. Co., 487 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1059 (D. Minn. 2007). Doherty nevertheless contends that she has a typical “all-risk” policy and thus need only prove that a loss occurred.

         2.

         Doherty also argues that reading the Policy as a whole, the phrase “$500 All Peril Deductible” in the Policy Declarations transforms the Policy into the typical “all-risk” policy. See (Doherty Dep., at 26:7-30:3, 35:12-38:5, 106:19-107:14); (Tr. of Hr'g 1, at 8:9-23). The Policy Declarations are contained in the renewal declaration pages, a separate document from the “Landlord Package Insurance Policy Form AS84, ” which outlines the terms and conditions of coverage. See (ECF No. 132-5). A section in the Policy Declarations labeled “Policy Coverages and Limits of Liability” lists the various types of coverage Plaintiffs purchased-among them “Dwelling Protection, ” “Other Structures Protection, ” and “Personal Property Protection”-as well as the limits of liability with respect to each. See (id.). Underneath each of these three headings is a bulletpoint that reads: “$500 All Peril Deductible Applies.” (Id.) According to Allstate, this phrase references the fact that a $500 deductible will apply to any and all perils that are covered under the Policy. Put differently, the $500 deductible does not vary depending on which covered peril causes the loss. See (Tr. of Hr'g 2, at 40:21-41:20); (ECF No. 125, at 6-7). Doherty contends that the reference to a “$500 All Peril Deductible” signals that she has purchased “all-peril, ” or “all-risk, ” coverage. See (ECF No. 144-2, at 6-7); (Doherty Dep., at 26:7-30:3, 35:12-38:5, 106:19-107:14); (Tr. of Hr'g 1, at 8:9-23).

         Doherty then uses the supposed “all-risk” nature of the Policy to assert that regardless of the types of losses she suffered or what perils caused them, they are covered. See (ECF No. 144-2, at 6-14); (Doherty Dep., at 26:7-30:3, 35:2-37:18, 42:3- 45:14, 48:1-52:14, 80:17-81:17, 106:19-108:10, 189:21-192:5, 197:18-198:9). For instance, Doherty testified to her belief that that the properties were damaged by the tenants, possibly at the suggestion of Radnor Township officials, several times. See (Doherty Dep., at 31:13-34:14, 38:6-39:17, 78:3-83:11, 108:2-110:1, 193:3-195:4, 197:18-200:24). Since neither tenant abuse nor vandalism is a covered peril (both are expressly excluded), Allstate's counsel repeatedly asked Doherty to identify which covered peril would entitle her to coverage for those alleged losses. Doherty responded, “I have an all perils policy so it basically covered the gamut.” (Id. at 35:12-15.) When pushed further, the following exchange ensued:

Counsel: It says right here, ma'am, believed to be the result of a peril insured against. So what was the peril that - Doherty: I have all perils.
Counsel: Okay. So what does that mean?
Doherty: It means I lucked out.
Counsel: Okay. That means all perils means you - Allstate wrote you a policy that would give you coverage for anything that would happen to the property?
Doherty: That's where we got into I was - I was laughing because I could remember contract law first year law school and some professor asked about that and a kid was saying it was a quasi-contract, ...

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.