FLORENCE A. GOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BARRY D. GOOD, DECEASED, Appellant
FRANKIE & EDDIE'S HANOVER INN, LLP RCA INSURANCE GROUP ON BEHALF OF STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
from the Order entered November 15, 2016 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Berks County, Civil Division, No(s): 13-15184
BEFORE: MOULTON, SOLANO and MUSMANNO, JJ.
A. Good ("Good"), individually and as executrix of
the Estate of Barry D. Good, deceased ("the
Estate"), appeals from the Order denying Good's
Motion for Summary Judgment in a declaratory judgment action
against Frankie & Eddie's Hanover Inn, LLP
("Hanover Inn"), and RCA Insurance Group
("RCA"), on behalf of State National Insurance
Company, and denying as moot RCA's Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment. We affirm.
April 4, 2012, at approximately 10:56 p.m., Barry D. Good
("the Deceased") was fatally injured when a Ford
F250, driven by Francis Lynch ("Lynch"), collided
with the Deceased's Kawasaki Vulcan Motorcycle. At the
time of the accident, Lynch was driving under the influence
of alcohol, which had been served to him at Hanover
date of the accident, Hanover Inn was covered by a commercial
insurance policy ("the Policy") issued by RCA. The
Policy includes a Liquor Liability Coverage Form,
which provides for liquor liability coverage with an
"Aggregate Limit, " as well as an "Each Common
Cause Limit." The Declarations page of the Policy
specifies that the liquor liability coverage limit for
"Each Occurrence" is $500, 000, and the
"Aggregate" limit is $1, 000, 000.
the pendency of the wrongful death and survival action, a
dispute arose regarding the applicable amount of coverage
under the Policy. The parties entered into a settlement
agreement for the underlying action, whereby RCA agreed to
pay the undisputed amount of $500, 000 on behalf of Hanover
Inn. The parties also agreed that a court of competent
jurisdiction would resolve the dispute pertaining to the
remaining $500, 000. An additional $15, 000 was paid by Safe
Auto Insurance Company, on behalf of Lynch, for bodily
17, 2013, Good filed a Complaint, seeking relief in the
nature of a declaratory judgment that the applicable
liability limit is the $1, 000, 000 "Aggregate Limit,
" resulting in an additional payment of $500, 000.
23, 2013, RCA filed an Answer and Counterclaim for
Declaratory Relief, asserting that the applicable liability
limit is the $500, 000 "Each Occurrence Limit."
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 22, 2016,
alleging that there were no genuine issues of material fact
in dispute. RCA filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on
September 19, 2016, asserting that the Policy unambiguously
provides for a lower "Each Common Cause Limit, "
and a higher "Aggregate Limit." By Order dated
November 15, 2016,  the trial court denied Good's Motion
for Summary Judgment, denied as moot RCA's Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment, and determined that the lower
"Each Occurrence/Each Common Cause Limit" is
applicable, rather than the higher "Aggregate
filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) Concise Statement of errors complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Good raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the
liquor liability coverage available to [Good] is in the
amount of $500, 000 [, ] where the [L]iquor [L]iability
[C]overage [F]orm does not contain the term
"occurrence[, ]" and where[, ] as delineated in the
[L]iquor [L]iability [C]overage [F]orm[, ] $1, 000, 000 in
liquor liability coverage was available to [Good, ] given the
clear and unambiguous language contained in the [L]iquor
[L]iability [C]overage [F]orm[?]
B. In the alternative, whether the trial court erred in
determining the term "occurrence" was unambiguous
in the absence of a definition for that ...