U Haul Co of Pennsylvania v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: MCKEE, Chief Judge, CHAGARES and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. Judge: Chief Judge MCKEE Authoring.

Case: 13-2185

Document: 003111604356

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/01/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 13-2185

U-HAUL CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Appellant
v.
UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
a New York corporation;
REPUBLIC FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY,
a New York corporation

On appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. No. 1-11-cv-00510)
District Judge: Honorable Richard G. Andrews

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 14, 2014
BEFORE: McKEE, Chief Judge, and CHAGARES and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: May 1, 2014)

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKEE, Chief Judge

Case: 13-2185

Document: 003111604356

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/01/2014

U-Haul Co. of Pennsylvania appeals the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Utica Mutual Insurance Co. We will affirm.
In granting summary judgment in favor of Utica, the District Court concluded that
Kirkwood violated the terms of the underlying insurance policy by settling Billings’
claim without Utica’s consent and that this gave rise to a presumption of prejudice under
Delaware law. See U-Haul Co. of Pa. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-510-RGA, 2013 WL
1726192, at * 4 (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2013).
In reaching its conclusions, the District Court carefully and thoroughly explained
its reasons for its conclusions, correctly identified the controlling law, and explained why
that authority mandated summary judgment. We can add little to the court’s wellreasoned and thorough opinion. Accordingly, we will affirm for substantially the reasons
set forth by the District Court.

2