MONARCH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. THE ESTATE OF ROBERT TARONE, III et al
Filing
101
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE FILED AS DOCUMENT 70 IS GRANTEDSIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACOB P. HART ON 3/21/11. 3/23/11 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )
Case 2:09-cv-00734-JPH Document 97
Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MONARCH LIFE INSURANCE CO.
v.
ESTATE OF ROBERT J. TARONE III;
JAMES P. McEVILLY, JR., as
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT J. TARONE III; and
LAURA SIPIO
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 09-734
ORDER AND OPINION
JACOB P. HART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATE: March 21, 2011
Interpleader Plaintiff Monarch Life Insurance Company has filed a motion in limine
seeking a ruling that there is no extra-contractual cause of action remaining against it in this case.
This motion will be granted.
Sipio alleges that this Court held in Fingels v. Continental Casualty Company, 2010 WL
1718289, Civ. A. No. 08-5943 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2010), that a plaintiff could bring a bad faith
claim based simply on a breach of contract. However, the court’s holding in that case was
exactly the opposite. In Fingles, the Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., granted the defendant’s
motion to dismiss a separate common-law bad faith claim, noting that, under Pennsylvania law,
such a claim is subsumed in the breach of contract action. Slip op. at 5-7, citing LSI Title
Agency, Inc. v. Evaluation Svces, Inc., 951 A.2d 384, 392 (Pa. Super. 2008); Northview Motors,
Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 78, 91 (3d Cir. 2000).
I note that Sipio never raised a separate bad faith action against Monarch. It may be that,
in citing Fingels, she simply seeks to defend her counterclaim for breach of contract. However,
Case 2:09-cv-00734-JPH Document 97
Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 4
even a breach of contract claim is duplicative in an interpleader action. If Monarch breached its
contract with Sipio, as a third-party beneficiary of decedent Robert J. Tarone, III, by failing to
honor Tarone’s Contract Change Form, damages are available to Sipio only in the form of the
annuity money that Monarch has already deposited with this Court, pursuant to this interpleader
action. Sipio is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees from Monarch for a breach of contract,
even if she proves that a breach occurred. Merlino v. Delaware County, 556 Pa. 422, 425 (1999)
(affirming the “American rule” that the winner of a lawsuit cannot recover its attorney’s fees
from the loser, absent an express statutory authorization or a clear agreement by the parties).1
For that reason, I will also preclude Sipio from introducing any evidence in support of her breach
of contract claim against Monarch.
AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion in
Limine, filed in this action as Document 70, and the responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Jacob P. Hart
___________________________________
JACOB P. HART
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
Because of this “American rule”, I will decline the suggestion of other defendants, the Estate of Robert
Tarone, and James P. McEvilly, Jr., that I enter this order without prejudice to a future action for attorney’s fees.
Case 2:09-cv-00734-JPH Document 97
Filed 03/22/11 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:09-cv-00734-JPH Document 97
Filed 03/22/11 Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?