 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harleysville Insurance Co. v. Church Insurance Co.11/16/2005
y awarded Brown $2,250,000 in damages, with liability apportioned between the defendants at 60% ($1,350,000) against Capital, and 40% ($900,000) against Cathedral.
Capital appealed several of the trial judge's rulings to this Court. On December 18, 2002, we held that the trial judge did not err by allowing the jury to determine the terms of an implied in fact contract between Capital and Cathedral after the expiration of the 1994 written agreement. We also noted that a "rational jury could easily conclude that Capital knew Cathedral intended and expected that Capital would maintain the exterior features of the property according to the [Wilmington] Code."
On June 25, 2002, Brown brought suit to enforce the judgment. This appeal arises out of the Superior Court's March 24, 2005 opinion ruling on several motions for summary judgment resolving the insurance companies' obligations against each other and to Brown.
The Superior Court Opinion
In Brown's suit to enforce the judgment, which was essentially a declaratory judgment action to determine liability insurance coverage, all of the insurance companies involved moved for summary judgment on different issues.
1)
a. Harleysville moved for summary judgment against National Union on the grounds that Harleysville's insurance policy issued to Capital was excess to the National Union policy issued to Church.
b. National Union moved for summary judgment against Harleysville on the grounds that the policy National Union issued to Church was an umbrella policy and was excess to any primary insurance policy -- Church's or Harleysville's.
2) Harleysville sought summary judgment that Capital was an additional insured under the Church policy issued to Cathedral.
3) Church sought summary judgment that Capital was not entitled to coverage under the Church policy because Capital failed to comply with the notice provisions in the Church policy.
4) Harleysville sought summary judgment that the Church policy was the primary coverage and the Harleysville policy was excess to Church's policy.
5) Harleysville sought summary judgment that Church had the duty to defend Capital as an additional insured under the Church policy.
On the first issue the trial judge held that the Harleysville policy issued to Capital was not an excess coverage policy in relation to the National Union umbrella policy issued to Church. The trial judge found that the National Union policy was not a primary policy but an umbrella or excess policy.
On the second issue, the trial judge held that Capital was an additional insured under the clear language of the Church policy. On the third issue, the trial judge held, that as to notice of loss, Capital was not required to give additional notice to Church because the notice requirement was fulfilled when Cathedral notified Church of Brown's claim and requested indemnity. On the fourth issue, the trial judge held that the Harleysville policy was excess to the Church policy.
On the fifth issue, the trial judge held that, although Capital did not formally tender its defense to Church until right before the trial was to begin in the underlying case, the notice of loss to Church triggered a potential duty to defend Capital. As an insurer under the policy Church issued to Cathedral, Church had a duty to defend Capital. Capital had a right to be defended or to knowingly waive that defense.
The trial judge also held that after Harleysville became aware of Church's involvement in the action it was incumbent upon Harleysville to determine what rights Capital may have had under t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|