6/19/2023 0 Comments Who owns safe auto insurance![]() ![]() for the damages incurred by McKean Hose Co. Did the trial court err when it found that Safe Auto does not have a duty under the insurance contract issued by Safe Auto to Melody Berlin to reimburse McKean Hose Co. ¶ 4 McKean Hose Company emphasizes differing aspects of the insurance contract and also raises policy concerns as follows:ġ. Whether the trial court erred in finding the auto insurance policy did not cover damages caused by Melody Berlin in an auto accident where the policy specifically and expressly excludes damages such as exemplaryĩ91 A.2d 330 damages but fails to specifically exclude consequential damages?īrief for Cross Appellant, Appellee Melody Berlin, at 8-9. Whether the trial court erred in finding the insurance policy issued by Safe Auto Insurance Company to Melody Berlin is unambiguous when the definitions that explain what damages are covered use the same word it is defining in its definition and where the definitions reference other definitions until the definitions come full circle back to the original term? 2. Berlin characterizes the questions for our review as follows:ġ. Berlin and the Hose Company then filed these companion appeals raising similar questions on appeal. DiSantis, Jr., accepted Safe Auto's interpretation of the policy, granting its motion for summary judgment and denying those filed by Berlin and the McKean Hose Company. Safe Auto argued to the contrary that McKean Hose Company sustained neither property damage nor consequential damages recognized by the policy and that the expenses it sustained are merely its costs of operation and are not covered by the policy language. McKean Hose Company argued similarly that the language of the policy is circular and therefore ambiguous, requiring that its claim be accepted as one for covered property damage. Berlin asserted, as she does in this appeal, that the costs incurred by McKean Hose Company are consequential damages not specifically excluded by the language of Safe Auto's policy that must, therefore, be included as property damage covered by the policy. ![]() Following discovery, all parties filed motions for summary judgment. In addition, McKean Hose Company filed a cross-claim against Berlin seeking payment of the amount alleged due for emergency services and Berlin filed a corresponding response denying liability. ¶ 3 Safe Auto's complaint named both Berlin and McKean Hose Company as defendants and both filed answers and new matter. The parties engaged in no further communication until February 11, 2008, after Safe Auto had commenced the underlying action and served process on the Hose Company. When Safe Auto did not respond, the recovery service followed up with a second invoice dated June 28, 2007. ![]() ![]() One week after the rescue, on April 10, 2007, the Hose Company attempted, through Pennsylvania Fire Recovery Services, to obtain reimbursement for that amount from Safe Auto, billing the company for coverage under Berlin's policy. The supplies expended were valued at $1,194. During the course of the rescue, the Hose Company used emergency equipment and supplies including eight flares, two hand lights, four hand tools, one generator, one set of cribbing and a hose truck. The Hose Company's claim arises out of a single vehicle auto accident in which Berlin's car skidded off the road, requiring emergency rescue. ¶ 2 McKean Hose Company is a volunteer firefighting company that provides emergency services to McKean Township, Erie County. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's entry of declaratory judgment. Upon review of the policy's language, we find no merit in the Appellants' claims. Extension of Berlin's coverage to the expenses the Hose Company incurred. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |