Court: Law Enforcement Policy Barred Coverage of Claim Over Police Officer's Driving
A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled that an auto exclusion in a law enforcement insurance policy issued to a city precluded coverage of a claim alleging that negligent or reckless driving by a city police officer had caused a fatal accident.
May 20, 2019 at 06:18 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is reprinted with permission from the Insurance Coverage Law Center, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.
A federal district court in Pennsylvania has ruled that an auto exclusion in a law enforcement insurance policy issued to a city precluded coverage of a claim alleging that negligent or reckless driving by a city police officer had caused a fatal accident. The court, however, permitted the city's insurance coverage action to continue under its auto policy.
|The Case
After James David Robinson was involved in a fatal automobile accident with a police officer from the city of Williamsport, Robinson's mother, Nancy Robinson Westbrooks, sued the city, alleging that the officer's negligent or reckless driving had caused the accident. She also asserted that the city's supervision and training of the officer had been negligent or reckless; that the officer's actions had constituted deliberate indifference to Robinson's safety, in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and that the city's actions had constituted deliberate indifference to Robinson's safety, also in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
After the city unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the constitutional claims, it settled with Westbrooks for $1,000,000.
CNA Insurance Cos. and the National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, which had issued an automobile insurance policy and a law enforcement insurance policy to the city, each of which had a $1 million limit, refused to provide more than $500,000 in total to cover for the settlement, and the city sued.
The city sought a declaration that the insurers had to cover the entire $1 million settlement under either the auto policy or the law enforcement policy and argued that the insurers' failure to cover the entire settlement breached the insurance policies and was in bad faith.
The insurers moved to dismiss.
The District Court's Decision
The court first rejected the insurers' argument that their liability under the automobile policy was limited to $500,000 because that policy only covered “sums [that the city] legally must pay as damages” and Pennsylvania law capped state law tort liability against local agencies such as the city at $500,000. The court observed that the state law tort liability cap did not apply to federal claims against the officer that had to be indemnified by the city, or to federal law claims against the city itself. It then found that because Westbrooks had raised, and eventually settled, federal claims against and with the city, the insurers' motion to dismiss the city's automobile policy claim had to be denied.
The court reached a different result with respect to the law enforcement policy, finding that coverage was precluded by its automobile exclusion, which excluded coverage for “damages arising out of the … operation, use, [or] control … of any auto[mobile] … owned or operated by … any insured; or operated by any person on behalf of, or in the course of employment by, an insured.”
The court reasoned that Westbrooks sought to hold the officer liable for his conduct while driving and the city liable for its supervision and training of the officer, and that Pennsylvania courts considered damages arising out of these types of claims as being proximately caused by an automobile. Therefore, the court concluded, these damages were not covered by the law enforcement policy, and it dismissed the city's claims seeking recovery under that policy.
The case is City of Williamsport v. CNA Insurance Cos.
Attorneys involved include: for the city of Williamsport, J. David Smith and Austin White of McCormick Law Firm in Williamsport; for National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford, Edward M. Napierkowski of Connor, Weber & Oberlies in Paoli; Emmett E McGowan, CNA Coverage Litigation Group in Radnor.
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Meyerowitz is the Director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. He can be contacted at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readMorgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
6 minute read‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
10 minute readPa. Firms Set to Finish Year Strong, Thanks to Demand Uptick, Shorter Collections Cycle
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 2Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 3Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 4Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 5Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250