MEGA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. QUINCY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 66

ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTIONSFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC #58) IS GRANTED IN PART. PLFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED IN ALL OHTER RESPECTS. DEFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC #60) IS DENIED, ETC. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 9/12/12. ) 9/12/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(gn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_____________________________________________
MEGA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and
:
HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
:
NEW JERSEY,
:
CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff,
:
:
No. 09-01728
v.
:
:
QUINCY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, :
Defendant.
:
_____________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 58 & 60), and the responses thereto, and for the reasons
set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED in part,
consistent with the Court’s Memorandum Opinion, as follows:
-

As it relates to Count I, Plaintiff Mega Construction Corp. (“Mega”) was an
additional insured on a primary basis on the general liability insurance policy
issued by Defendant Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Quincy”) to
Dobek Contracting, Inc., policy no. CN806575. Quincy had a duty to defend
and indemnify Mega against the claims asserted in Victor Tavares v. Mega
Construction Corp., et al., March Term 2008, No. 6194 (Phila. Ct. Comm.
Pls.) (“Tavares Action”), and must reimburse Plaintiffs for the costs,
expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against that action.
Quincy also had a duty to indemnify Mega, and must reimburse Plaintiffs for
any award of damages against and/or settlement amounts paid in the Tavares

Action. Finally, Quincy is required to reimburse Plaintiffs for all costs and
attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this declaratory judgment action.
-

Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their breach of
contract claim in Count II

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED in all other respects.

3.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED.

4.

Harleysville shall submit a statement of damages it contends are owed based upon
the Court’s summary judgment ruling, including the cost of defending and
indemnifying Mega in the Tavares Action, and the cost of prosecuting this
declaratory judgment action, on or before October 19, 2012.

5.

Defendant Quincy may submit a response to Harleysville’s statement of damages on
or before November 9, 2012.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
_______________________
Mitchell S. Goldberg, J.

2