Premises Liability

Liability for Water Runoff from Property

Gayhardt-Stang v. PennDOT, et al, C.P. Lehigh County, opinion by Black, P.J., filed 11/5/07 (PICS 07-2110).

Plaintiff’s decedent was driving on a state highway when he hit a patch of black ice, lost control and was in a fatal accident. The ice was formed by water runoff from defendant, Rutz’s adjacent field. Plaintiff sued both PennDOT and Rutz; Rutz moved for summary judgment which the court granted.

The court held that there was no evidence that Rutz was negligent. Further, a property owner cannot be held responsible for the drainage conditions on the state-maintained highway which are the responsibility of PennDOT unless the property owner has diverted water onto the highway by means of an artificial condition. As this was not alleged in the instant case, the property owner was entitled to summary judgment.

Insurance
Bad Faith - Conflict of Laws

Hanover Insurance Company v. Ryan, U.S.D.C., E.D.Pa., opinion by Stengel, J., filed 12/17/07 (PICS 07-2075).

Ryan was insured by Hanover Insurance Company which issued a personal umbrella liability policy of insurance to Ryan in New York State. The policy contained an exclusion for liability arising out from the providing of home daycare services.

Ryan, while intoxicated, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania causing the death of the operator of another vehicle. After investigating the accident, Hanover concluded that the claim fell entirely within the home daycare exclusion and denied coverage. (Parenthetically, Ryan had a primary liability policy with Nationwide which had tendered its policy limits.)

Hanover filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Ryan counterclaimed for bad faith, breach of contract and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.  Hanover moved to dismiss.

Preliminarily, the court concluded that Pennsylvania, rather than New York, law should apply to this case, even though the policy was issued in New York. The court applied the interests analysis as set forth in Griffith v. United Airlines, 203 A.2d 796 (Pa. 1976), to contract cases.

After holding that Ryan asserted sufficient facts to make out a claim of bad faith, the court held that there is no claim for punitive damages in a breach of contract action in Pennsylvania and that the claims for misrepresentations must fail because the only misrepresentation alleged was the “misrepresentation” that there was no coverage, which the court found to be nothing more than a claim that an incorrect denial of coverage is a misrepresentation.