View data on present and former Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company constructing places. 194, 200-201 (2010) for the extended established principle that: In order for the duty of defense to arise, the underlying complaint need only show through common allegations, a possibility that the liability claim falls inside the insurance coverage coverage.” (Emphasis supplied.) According to PIIC, provided this possibility of coverage, National Union had a duty to defend the Director Defendants in the Underlying Action.
Lessees had been billed month-to-month and would spend Arrow Motors the premium which would in turn pay Philadelphia Indemnity. Requiring workers’ compensation insurers to defend civil actions outdoors the workers’ compensation system would represent an unwarranted expansion of coverage historically understood as supplied below this mandatory form of insurance coverage, a result which would improve insurance coverage fees for employers, and could gut the legislative scheme for workers’ compensation.
– Universal North America Insurance Company
PIIC issued a complete general liability policy to its insured, North Suffolk. The case is now before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The interpretation of an insurance coverage contract also presents a question of law which we overview with out deference to the trial court. Policy, even though the policy terms do not extend coverage to them or, at least, there is a possibility” that they would be held to be insureds in a declaratory judgment action addressing coverage problems beneath the Workers’ Comp.
Ct. 561 (2000), decided shortly soon after Atlantic Charter, the Appeals Court addressed a coverage dispute among an employer’s general liability insurer and its workers’ compensation insurer really considerably like the dispute presented by this case. At the time of the accident, Arrow Motors had 4 insurance coverage policies in force: a industrial auto policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity, a garage liability policy issued by Universal Underwriters Insurance Enterprise and a small business auto and an excess policy issued by Federal Insurance coverage Corporation.
View details on current and former Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company creating areas. They moved to dismiss the complaint chiefly on the grounds that, with respect to the wrongful death action, they are immune from suit, as Ms. Moulton’s employer, beneath the exclusive remedy provision, G.L.c. 152, § 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), and, with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, they owed Moulton no such duty.” Id. The Superior Court denied the motion to dismiss the director defendants sought interlocutory assessment beneath the doctrine of present execution and the case was transferred to the SJC.
When information are undisputed and the situation requires only the interpretation of an insurance policy, a question of law is presented for which resolution on summary judgment is proper. four Philadelphia Indemnity’s position is that the terms you” and your” in its policy unambiguously refer to the named insured shown on the declarations page—Arrow Motors¾and does not include things like the preferred buyer lessees like Honkamp.
Ct. 561 (2000), decided shortly after Atlantic Charter, the Appeals Court addressed a coverage dispute involving an employer’s basic liability insurer and its workers’ compensation insurer very a great deal like the dispute presented by this case. At the time of the accident, Arrow Motors had four insurance coverage policies in force: a commercial auto policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity, a garage liability policy issued by Universal Underwriters Insurance Enterprise and a small business auto and an excess policy issued by Federal Insurance Company.
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company – An appeal from a grant of summary judgment raises an situation of law which we overview de novo by applying the same requirements employed by the trial court.