PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently denied motions for summary judgment filed by two insurance companies in a complex legal battle regarding a settlement stemming from a car accident.
In the May 22 ruling, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg denied the motions by Continental Casualty Company (CCC) and Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company in the suit filed by Continental Casualty requesting a declaration that Penn National should have contributed to a $10 million settlement stemming from the car accident.
In its motion for summary judgment, Penn said CCC didn’t prove that Penn should have paid a portion of the settlement and argued there is no evidence that CCC itself paid anything toward the settlement, but rather that it paid on behalf of other parties that didn’t include one of the drivers and the company she worked for. Penn also added that the driver in question wasn’t covered by its insurance.
In the ruling, the court pointed out that CCC issued a payment screen that shows the details of the settlement showing it paid $8.7 million in the settlement. As for whether it paid for other parties, the court said there is still a genuine issue of fact of whether the settlement was paid for the company that owned one of the cars involved in the crash. When it comes to the driver, she said she thought she would be covered by the company’s insurance policy on the car involved in the accident. She also said she wasn’t aware of the legal ramifications of getting behind the wheel of the car. Ultimately, there’s still the question of whether the driver used the car on behalf of her employer, which is connected to the company that owns the vehicle. Considering these factors, the court denied Penn’s motion for summary judgment.
Regarding the motion by CCC, which said it wants to be reimbursed for the $8.7 million it paid for the settlement, the court reiterated there are too many issues of fact regarding the details of how the woman got behind the wheel of the company car and which insurance company and policy is actually responsible for covering it. The court denied CCC’s motion for summary judgment as well.
According to court filings, the insurance dispute stems from a Sept. 15, 2015, accident involving Jeremy Esakoff, who was riding a motorcycle, and a car driven by Kathryn Marquet-Sandt. Marquet-Sandt worked for Shady Maple Smorgasbord Inc., which was owned by Sight & Sound Ministries Inc. (SSMI). Another SSMI employee, William Luckenbaugh, scheduled to take the company car, a Yukon, to a trade show in New York. Marquet-Sandt was also going to the show and the two rode in the Yukon together.
Luckenbaugh initially let Marquet-Sandt drive the car and was going to take over driving after a stop to get something to eat, court filings said. As they exited the highway, Marquet-Sandt collided with Esakoff’s motorcycle.
Esakoff later sued in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, claiming Marquet-Sand was negligent and SSMI and Shady Maple were liable.
Great American Insurance Company, which was not named in the lawsuit, was the insurance company for SSMI in a $1 million policy and offered to defend Sight & Sound, court filings said. CCC also had an umbrella policy to Sight & Sound. Penn National had a business car policy for Shady Maple, and Penn National in return offered defense for Shady Maple in Esakoff’s lawsuit. But Penn National refused to cover Marquet-Sandt, stating that Great American would serve as the provider for her.
CCC and Penn National then began their dispute, court filings said. CCC said Marquet-Sandt was acting within the scope of her employment for Shady Maple, which was insured by Penn National. But Penn National said Shady Maple didn’t own the Yukon, so it had no coverage obligation. Meanwhile, Esakoff settled for $10 million and CCC contributed $8.7 million, Great American offered $1 million and Erie Insurance Exchange gave $300,000.
CCC then sued Penn National for declaratory judgment that Penn National should have participated in the Esakoff settlement. Both sides then filed motions for summary judgment, which the court denied.
The court then ordered a trial scheduling conference to be held June 11.