BASELINE CONTRACTING, INC. v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#35] IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS CINCINNATI INSURANCE AN D CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY AND AGAINST PLAINTIFFS BASELINE CONTRACTING, INC. AND SITELINE SERVICES, INC. ON COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFFS ARE BARRED FROM ASSERTING AS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM THAT DEFENDANTS (A) FAILED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH TIMELY NOTICE OF AN INCREASE IN THEIR PREMIUMS, (B) FAILED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH TIMELY NOTICE OF ITS ELECTION NOT TO RENEW THEIR WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE, (C) IMPROPERLY RE- INCLUDED THE VALUE OF DIRECT CASH FRINGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS INTO ITS CALCULATION OF PLAINTIFFS' PAYROLLS FOR GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PREMIUM PURPOSES, AND (D) MISHANDLED THE BOOTH, REINOEHL, AND MOSER WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS, THEREBY DISCHARGING PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY THEIR FINAL AUDITED PREMIUMS. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#36] IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 8/20/15. 8/20/15 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BASELINE CONTRACTING, INC. and
SITELINE SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiffs
v.
CINCINNATI INSURANCE, and
CINCINNATI INDEMNITY COMPANY
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 12-2350

ORDER
AND NOW, this

20th

day of August, 2015, upon consideration of Defendants

Cincinnati Insurance and Cincinnati Indemnity Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Document #35); Plaintiffs Baseline Contracting, Inc. and Siteline Services, Inc.’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Document #36); and all responses and replies thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Document #35) is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2.

The Motion is GRANTED as to Count II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

3.

Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendants Cincinnati Insurance and

Cincinnati Indemnity Company and against Plaintiffs Baseline Contracting, Inc. and Siteline
Services, Inc. on Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4.

Plaintiffs are barred from asserting as affirmative defenses to Defendants’

Counterclaim that Defendants (a) failed to provide them with timely notice of an increase in their
premiums, (b) failed to provide them with timely notice of its election not to renew their
workers’ compensation and general liability coverage, (c) improperly re-included the value of
direct cash fringe benefit payments into its calculation of Plaintiffs’ payrolls for general liability

coverage premium purposes, and (d) mishandled the Booth, Reinoehl, and Moser workers’
compensation claims, thereby discharging Plaintiffs’ responsibility to pay their final audited
premiums.
5.

Defendants’ Motion is DENIED in all other respects.

6.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Document #36) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence F. Stengel
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, J.

2