CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 114

ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANYS (CONTINENTAL) MOTION TO ALTER AND/OR AMEND JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 107), DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANYS (PENN NATIONAL) RESPONSE (DOC. NO. 110), CONTINENTAL S REPLY (DOC. NO. 111), AND PENN NATIONALS SUR-REPLY (DOC. NO. 112), IS GRANTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 12/14/21. 12/15/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(jaa, )

Case 2:17-cv-04183-MSG Document 114 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________________
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL
:
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________________:

CIVIL ACTION

No. 17-4183

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2021, upon consideration of Plaintiff Continental
Casualty Company’s (“Continental”) Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment (Doc. No. 107),
Defendant Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Penn National”)
Response (Doc. No. 110), Continental’ s Reply (Doc. No. 111), and Penn National’s Sur-reply
(Doc. No. 112), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
1. The sentence on page 8 of the March 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion that reads:
Thus, the Penn National Primary Policy covers Shady Maple’s
vicarious liability for Marquet-Sandt’s negligence only if MarquetSandt, acting with Shady Maple’s permission, “borrowed” the
Yukon.
is AMENDED to read:
Thus, the Penn National Primary Policy covers Marquet-Sandt only
if Marquet-Sandt, acting with Shady Maple’s permission,
“borrowed” the Yukon.
2. The last paragraph on page 18 of the March 12, 2021 Memorandum Opinion that reads:
As Shady Maple did not “borrow” the car, neither the Penn National
Primary Policy nor the Penn National Excess Policy was triggered,
meaning that Penn National owed no defense or coverage in the

Case 2:17-cv-04183-MSG Document 114 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2

underlying Esakoff action. In turn, Plaintiff Continental is not
entitled to equitable contribution from Penn National for any
amounts it paid in connection with the settlement of the Esakoff
action. Accordingly, I will grant judgment in favor of Defendant
and against Plaintiff.
is AMENDED to read:
As Shady Maple did not “borrow” the car, neither the Penn National
Primary Policy nor the Penn National Excess Policy was triggered
to provide coverage for Marquet-Sandt, meaning that Penn National
owed no defense or coverage for Marquet-Sandt in the underlying
Esakoff action. In turn, Plaintiff Continental is not entitled to
equitable contribution from Penn National for any amounts it paid
in connection with the settlement of the Esakoff action on MarquetSandt’s behalf.
3. The additional discussion set forth in this Order’s accompanying Memorandum Opinion
regarding Continental’s entitlement to equitable contribution from Penn National for
amounts paid on behalf of Shady Maple for its vicarious liability in the Esakoff action is
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of Defendant
Penn National and against Plaintiff Continental.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.