Filed: May 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-2004 Rector Wardens v. Amer Natl Fire Ins Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1703 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Rector Wardens v. Amer Natl Fire Ins" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 719. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/719 This decision is brought to you for free and ope
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-2004 Rector Wardens v. Amer Natl Fire Ins Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1703 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Rector Wardens v. Amer Natl Fire Ins" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 719. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/719 This decision is brought to you for free and open..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-6-2004
Rector Wardens v. Amer Natl Fire Ins
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1703
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Rector Wardens v. Amer Natl Fire Ins" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 719.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/719
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NOS. 03-1703 and 03-1732
THE RECTOR, WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF
ST. PETER’S CHURCH IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY;
AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellants
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-02806)
District Judge: Hon. Herbert J. Hutton
Argued January 27, 2004
BEFORE: NYGAARD, FUENTES and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed May 6, 2004)
Richard L. McMonigle, Jr. (Argued)
Tracey N. Kilcullen
1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Four Penn Center
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Appellants
Stephen J. Mathes
Kevin J. Kotch (Argued)
Hoyle, Fickler, Herschel & Mathes
One South Broad - Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Attorneys for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
American National Fire Insurance Company (“ANF”) and Agricultural
Insurance Company (“Agricultural”; collectively, the “Appellants”) appeal from the
judgment entered on behalf of plaintiff The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Peter’s
Church in the City of Philadelphia (“St. Peter’s Church” or “the Church”). St. Peter’s
Church filed this diversity suit against Appellants alleging, inter alia, that ANF breached
its duty to defend under an insurance contract. In ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for
summary judgement, the District Court held that: (1) ANF’s policy imposed a duty upon
it to provide a defense to the original and the amended complaints in the underlying
litigation; (2) ANF breached that duty; and (3) ANF was not guilty of bad faith. The
parties thereupon stipulated to the entry of judgment in favor of St. Peter’s Church in the
amount of $314,000. Pursuant to the same stipulation, the parties also agreed that if the
District Court’s summary judgment rulings were reversed on appeal, the District Court
2
would enter judgment in favor of St. Peter’s Church in the amount of $284,000.
Appellants now seek to appeal from the District Court’s judgment, but only as to the
District Court’s ruling that ANF breached its contractual duty to defend. We will affirm
the District Court’s judgment.
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case.
Because we write only for them, we limit ourselves to a brief statement of the reasons for
our decision.
I.
The District Court had jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332 because the citizenship of the parties was diverse and the amount in controversy was
in excess of $75,000. The District Court also had jurisdiction to enter a declaratory
judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. We have jurisdtiction over this appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291 because the District Court’s judgment constituted a final decision.
II.
On March 11, 1999, a civil suit was brought against St. Peter’s Church, as
well as the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, by the 19th Street Baptist Church in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the “Underlying Suit”). St. Peter’s Church sent a
copy of the complaint in the Underlying Suit to its insurance broker on M arch 26, 1999.
The complaint reached ANF’s claims division on April 1, 1999.1 As of that date, and in
1
ANF provided primary liability insurance coverage to St. Peter’s Church for, inter
alia, the “wrongful acts” of the Church’s officers and directors, and Agricultural provided
3
accordance with the unchallenged ruling of the District Court, ANF had a duty to provide
a defense to St. Peter’s Church and to reimburse the Church for any necessary and
reasonable defense expenses incurred by the Church until it was able to provide that
defense. See American States Ins. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 628 A.2d 880, 887 (Pa.
Super. Ct. 1993) (“Under Pennsylvania law, an insurance company is obligated to defend
an insured whenever the complaint filed by the injured party may potentially come within
the policy’s coverage” and that duty “remains with the insurer until the insurer can
confine the claim to a recovery that is not within the scope of the policy.”); see also
Widener University v. Fred S. James & Co., Inc.,
537 A.2d 829, 833 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)
(noting that an insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when it is “reasonably alerted of an
action to which its duty would extend”). On March 31, 1999, the Church engaged
Sprague & Sprague as interim counsel so that a timely answer could be filed.
ANF issued a reservation of rights letter on June 25, 1999, which, inter alia,
acknowledged coverage of the breach of fiduciary duty claim set forth in Count II of the
amended complaint in the Underlying Suit, provided that a wrongful act occurred during
the coverage period. The letter acknowledged a duty to defend, subject to the
reservations stated therein, and expressed an intention “to refer the defense of [the] action
to new counsel.” App. at 21a. We assume, without deciding, that this reservation of
umbrella coverage. The relevant insurance policy provided, subject to certain limits and
exclusions, that “[ANF] will have the right and duty to defend any ‘suit’ seeking . . .
‘damages.’” App. at 661a.
4
rights letter created no conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured. We
therefore assume, without deciding, that ANF, barring a material breach by it, retained the
right, as well as the duty, to select and pay counsel.
In the five months following the filing of the complaint, ANF provided no
defense and made no reimbursement of expenses incurred by the Church. At various
points in time during that period, it did offer to engage five different counsel: (1)
Margolis Edelstein; (2) Post & Schell, P.C.; (3) Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin; (4) Manta & Welge; and (5) Sprague & Sprague. Margolis Edelstein was
rejected because it represented the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania, a co-defendant in
the Underlying Suit; Post & Schell was rejected because it counseled ANF as to whether
the claims in the Underlying Suit were covered by the Church’s insurance policy;
Marshall, Dennehey was not engaged because ANF had removed the firm from its
approved counsel list; and Manta & Welge was not engaged because it lacked relevant
experience. Finally, Sprague & Sprague was not engaged because when it was presented
with the fee schedule guidelines ANF insisted upon, Sprague & Sprague found “them
unacceptable.” App. at 38a.2 Those guidelines, inter alia, would have imposed a
maximum rate of $130 per hour for a partner’s work and $115 per hour for the work of an
associate.
2
On August 2, 1999, ANF was advised that the “Church has discussed [the fee
schedule guidelines] and the other guidelines with Sprague & Sprague which has advised
that it finds them unacceptable.” App. at 38a.
5
Importantly, ANF does not assert before us that its tender of representation
by the first four of these firms satisfied its obligation to provide a defense. Rather,
Appellants argue that an offer made months later to engage Sprague & Sprague on
different terms satisfied ANF’s obligation to provide a defense.3 The undisputed record
evidence, however, is that Sprague & Sprague was unwilling to undertake the
representation on the terms ANF was insisting upon in August of 1999.
On August 12, 1999, five months after suit was filed, St. Peter’s Church
wrote to ANF advising it that the Church regarded ANF as being in breach of its duty to
provide a defense, and that the Church would conduct its own defense and look to ANF
for reimbursement. The letter concluded:
In sum, it is clear that [ANF] has an obligation to reimburse
St. Peter’s for the defense costs that it has incurred to date and
an obligation going forward to pay the law firm of Sprague
and Sprague its attorney fees and costs as they are incurred.
Please contact me to discuss the amount of costs which should
be reimbursed to St. Peter’s immediately and the orderly
procedures which should be established concerning the future
payment of the fees and expenses of the Sprague law firm.
App. at 42a.4
3
On March 15, 2000, over a year after the underlying suit was filed, counsel for ANF
advised counsel for the Church “in accordance with our recent conversation” that his
“client has accepted the [$200] hourly rate for the counsel fees incurred on behalf of the
Church”, provided that “a legal auditing service” agree that the hours charged were
reasonable. App. at 66a.
4
The August 12th letter took the position that the reservation of rights letter had
created a conflict of interest and that “by meeting its defense obligations under a
reservation of rights, [ANF had] renounced its control of the litigation.” App. at 41a. As
6
On September 14, 1999, six and a half months after suit was filed, coverage
counsel for ANF responded:
[ANF] has sought to retain independent counsel to represent
the interests of St. Peter’s Church. [ANF] also indicated that
it would be agreeable to retaining the firm that the Church had
engaged to represent the interests of the Church if the firm
was willing to work within the [ANF] fee schedule. The
Church’s refusal to agree to either of these proposals puts the
Church in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy
of insurance.
Again, it is clear that [ANF] has no obligation to reimburse
St. Peter’s for the defense costs incurred to date and no
obligation to pay counsel fees to the law firm of Sprague and
Sprague for the future. Notwithstanding these comments,
please be advised that [ANF] continues to remain open to the
possibility of amicably resolving these issues.
App. at 45a-46a.
On April 17, 2000, thirteen months after the underlying suit was filed, the
Church filed this suit against ANF and Agricultural. As of that time, while ANF had
made further, conditional, offers to engage Margolis Edelstein and Sprague & Sprague, it
neither provided a defense nor paid any reimbursement to the Church for the legal fees it
had incurred in defending the Underlying Suit, i.e., at that point $284,000.
We conclude that, on August 12, 1999, ANF was in material breach of its
duty to defend. Vanderveen v. Erie Indem. Co., 208 A.2d 837, 838 (Pa. 1965) (“An
earlier indicated, we express no opinion on whether this position was legally correct. As
explained hereafter, we hold only that even accepting ANF’s characterization of its duty
to defend, it was in material breach of its policy as of August 12, 1999, and the Church
had a right to mitigate its damages by going forward with its own counsel.
7
insurer’s failure or refusal to defend a claim within the scope of an insurance policy
constitutes a breach of contract for which it is subject to damages recoverable in an action
of assumpsit.”). That duty required ANF to provide counsel able and willing to undertake
representation of the Church in the underlying litigation, and it had failed to do so despite
the fact that the suit was over five months old. See, e.g., Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich
v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 475, 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (noting that the duty to
defend “includes providing competent counsel and paying all reasonable and necessary
costs”). ANF’s offer to engage Sprague & Sprague on terms that firm was unwilling to
accept clearly did not satisfy this duty to defend. As a result, the Church was entitled to
declare ANF in breach, provide its own defense, and look to ANF for reimbursement of
the reasonable costs of that defense. Gedeon v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
188 A.2d
320, 322 n.5 (Pa. 1963) (“[T]he recovery for breach of the covenant to defend will
ordinarily be the cost of hiring substitute counsel and other costs of the defense.”); Zeitz
v. Zurich General Acc. & Liability Ins. Co.,
67 A.2d 742, 746 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1949)
(holding that an insurer’s failure to fulfill its duty to defend “subjects it to liability to the
insured for the costs and fees expended in successfully opposing a claim for damages”).
The Church has done so and is therefore entitled to the judgment the District Court has
entered in its favor.5
5
ANF contends on appeal that it complied with its duty to defend by offering, in
January 2000, to pay Sprague & Sprague for its representation of the Church at Sprague
& Sprague’s $200 hourly rate, subject to an auditor’s approval of Sprague & Sprague’s
hours reasonably spent on the Church’s defense. Because we find that ANF was in
8
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
breach as of August 12, 1999, we do not reach the question of whether ANF’s belated
January offer would have complied with its duty to defend.
9
