Reynolds, J. v. Pennsylvania National Mutual (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A31020-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 JOHN REYNOLDS Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY A/K/A PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1286 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Order Entered March 16, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 150602031 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2018 Appellant, John Reynolds, appeals from the order entered on March 16, 2017. The subject order granted the motion for summary judgment that was filed on behalf of Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company a/k/a Penn National Insurance Company (hereinafter “Penn National”) and dismissed the action. We affirm. The trial court has ably summarized the underlying facts and procedural posture of this case. As the trial court explained: [Penn National] issued [Appellant] an all-risk business insurance policy (the “Policy”) . . . , with a limit of [$2,403,226.00], on December 7, 2013. This policy was in effect at the time of the water damage occurrence in this case. The Policy contains exclusions for damage to the interior of the structure caused by rain, except where the rain entered as a result of damage caused by a covered ____________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-A31020-17 cause of loss; and for loss or damage caused by water, interior or exterior. However, there is an endorsement allowing coverage of up to [$100,000.00] for water damage caused by a backed up sewer, drain, or sump pump.[1] On July 15, 2014, there was a significant rainstorm in Philadelphia. The next day, [Appellant] filed for first-party benefits for flooding damage to the interior of the building. [Appellant] made a claim for water damage to all four floors and the basement of the property, along with computers in the building. On July 24, 2014, Michael Danilla, an adjuster working for [Penn National] inspected the premises. On July 27, 2014, [Penn National] sent a reservation of rights letter to [Appellant], stating that [Penn National] would investigate the cause of loss and assign an expert to examine the roof. On August 4, 2014, Keith Bergman, P.E., inspected the roof. His report, dated August 7, 2014, stated that the roof appeared to be in good condition with no evidence of water penetration into the building. Accordingly, on August 26, 2014, [Penn National] sent [Appellant] a denial letter. An employee of [Appellant] by the name of Ray Griffiths subsequently reported that he had gone to the building during the storm and saw flooding inside. Griffiths said that he went upstairs on the roof and saw a blocked drain that had accumulated approximately 18 inches of water around it. Griffiths removed the debris that had clogged the roof and the water drained away. In [October 2014, Appellant] requested reconsideration of the claim denial. [Appellant] advised [Penn National] that [he] would be hiring [his] own engineer to examine the property. In correspondence, [Griffiths’] report was disclosed. On October 28, 2014, [Appellant’s] expert, Charles Penza, examined the roof and issued a report stating that the plugged drain caused a backup of rainwater on the roof, resulting in water penetration through a ____________________________________________ We quote the relevant portions of the Policy in the Appendix to this memorandum. 1 -2- J-A31020-17 shingled party wall. There was no finding of physical damage to the roof or party wall. Based on this new information, on January 29, 2015, [Penn National] reconsidered its denial of coverage and granted limited coverage in the amount of [$100,000.00] under the Policy’s Businessowners Pennpac Deluxe Endorsement. This coverage was for damage caused by backed up sewers and drains. [Appellant] was not satisfied and filed an initial complaint on July 16, 2015. He filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2015. Trial Court Opinion, 3/16/17, at 1-3 (some internal citations and capitalization omitted). Appellant’s complaint contained two claims: bad faith. breach of contract and In essence, Appellant claimed that Penn National breached the Policy by failing to pay for all of the losses he sustained and that Penn National’s refusal to pay under the Policy constituted bad faith. See Appellant’s Second Amended Complaint, 11/21/15, at 3-5. At the conclusion of discovery, Penn National filed a summary judgment motion and requested that the trial court grant it summary judgment on both of Appellant’s claims and dismiss Appellant’s complaint. According to Penn National, there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case, as it was undisputed that Appellant’s loss was caused by rainwater “backing up from the [roof] drain and seeping through the shingled party wall.” See Penn National’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 9/6/16, at ¶ 36. Therefore, Penn National claimed, it fulfilled its contractual obligations when it paid Appellant the $100,000.00, in accordance with the “Businessowners -3- J-A31020-17 Pennpac Deluxe Endorsement.” Penn National claimed it was not liable for the remainder of Appellant’s losses, as the Policy’s “rainwater limitation” and “water exclusion” provisions limited Penn National’s liability to the $100,000.00 it had already paid. See id. at 1-9. On October 6, 2016, Appellant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, where he requested judgment in his favor on both of his claims. See Appellant’s Answer and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, 10/6/16, at 1-7. On March 16, 2017, the trial court entered an order, which denied Appellant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, granted Penn National’s summary judgment motion, and dismissed Appellant’s complaint. Trial Court Opinion and Order, 3/16/17, at 1-6. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant raises two claims: [1.] Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of [Penn National] when the undisputed evidence showed the damage to the insured premises for which [Appellant] made claim under [Penn National’s] insurance policy was caused by water damage caused by a clogged roof drain that was not excluded under [Penn National’s] insurance policy it issued to [Appellant?] [2.] Whether the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment in favor of [Appellant] when the undisputed evidence showed the damage to the insured premises for which [Appellant] made claim under [Penn National’s] insurance policy was caused by water damage caused by a clogged roof drain that was not excluded under [Penn National’s] insurance policy it issued to [Appellant?] Appellant’s Brief at 2-3. -4- J-A31020-17 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Ramy I. Djerassi. We conclude that there has been no error in this case and that Judge Djerassi’s opinion, entered on March 16, 2017, meticulously and accurately disposes of Appellant’s issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Djerassi’s thorough opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge Djerassi’s opinion. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Panella, J., concurs in the result. Stevens, P.J.E., concurs in the result. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/13/18 -5- J-A31020-17 Appendix In relevant part, the Policy declares: BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM ... SECTION 1 – PROPERTY A. Coverage We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises . . . caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss ... 3. Covered Causes of Loss Risks of direct physical loss unless the loss is: a. Excluded in Paragraph B. Exclusions in Section 1; or b. Limited in Paragraph 4. Limitations in Section 1. 4. Limitations a. We will not pay for loss of or damage to: ... (5) The interior of any building or structure caused by or resulting from rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, unless: (a) The building or structure first sustains damage by a Covered Cause of Loss to its roof or walls through which the rain, snow, sleet, ice, sand or dust enters; or (b) The loss or damage is caused by or results from thawing of snow, sleet or ice on the building or structure. ... B. Exclusions -6- J-A31020-17 1. We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause or event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. Those exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area. ... g. Water[2] ... (3) Water that backs up or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer, drain, sump, sump pump or related equipment. . . ... This exclusion applies regardless of whether any of the above, in Paragraphs 1. through 5., is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise caused. An example of a situation to which this exclusion applies is the situation where a dam, levee, seawall or other boundary or containment system fails in whole or in part, for any reason, to contain the water. But if any of the above, in Paragraphs 1. through 5., results in fire, explosion or sprinkler leakage, we will pay for the loss or damage caused by that fire, explosion or sprinkler leakage. ... BUSINESSOWNERS PENNPAC DELUXE ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM ____________________________________________ A Water Exclusion Endorsement modified the Policy’s original water exclusion. In quoting the Policy, we have included the language contained in the Water Exclusion Endorsement. 2 -7- J-A31020-17 Section 1 – PROPERTY is amended as follows: ... II. COVERAGE SUBJECT TO BLANKET LIMIT A. Blanket Limit of Insurance - $100,000 The most we will pay for loss or damage under the following Additional Coverages and Coverage Extensions is $100,000 in total in any one occurrence: 1. Back Up of Sewers and Drains ... B. Additional Coverages The following are added to Paragraph A.5. Additional Coverages: Back Up of Sewers and Drains We will pay for loss or damage to Covered Property caused by a back up from a sewer or drain or an overflow from a sump within a building at the described premises provided: (a) The back up or overflow is not expected or intended from your standpoint; and (b) The expenses must be reported to us in writing no later than 90 days after the occurrence. The Policy at 18, 33, 34, 35, 50, and 90. -8-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
