Pa. PRACTICE

Declaratory Judgment Actions

Mine Safety Appliances Co. vs Century Indemnity Company, CP Allegheny County, opinion by Wettick, J, filed November 29, 2007 (PICS 07-2016).

The court held that an insurance company’s declaratory judgment action regarding coverage under a liability policy must name as defendants all parties with pending claims against its insured.

Mine Safety sued Century as a result of Mine Safety having been sued in numerous personal injury suits in which Century refused to provide a defense. Century filed a multi-count counterclaim which sought declarations regarding the nature of coverage for underlying claims already resolved and for future claims not yet brought, but not for any currently pending claims. Mine Safety filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the counterclaim, which the court granted.

Relying on Dale Chemical Co. vs Hartford, 516 A.2d 684 (1986), the court found that persons with unresolved claims against the insured were indispensable parties to a declaratory judgment action. It rejected a contrary ruling from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in Kvaerner vs One Beacon. The court held that a declaratory judgement action can only proceed if the interests of those who cannot be joined are adequately represented and those who can be joined are joined.

Note: The federal declaratory judgment rules are much more lenient than those of Pennsylvania as to who must be brought in as party defendants on a declaratory judgment action.

PREMISES LIABILITY

Coffee Burn

Hurvitz v. Starbucks, CP Philadelphia, opinion by DiVito, J., filed November 20, 2007 (PICS 07-2046)

Plaintiff purchased a cup of hot water for tea which was placed in a double cup. She removed the lid to insert the tea bag and spilled hot water on her forearm, burning herself. She sued Starbucks on a premises liability theory. The court granted Summary Judgment in favor of Starbucks.

The court cited the Restatement of Torts (2d) to the effect that a breach of duty to a business invitee only occurs when the possessor knows or should know of a condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm, should expect an invitee would not discover that risk and fails to take reasonable care to protect the invitee. In the instant matter, there was no evidence that the hot water was improperly packaged, that there was a breach of industry standards, that there was any problem with the design or construction of the cup or lid or that the cup was filled improperly. Further, any reasonable person should be aware that hot water can cause burns.