KOREA TRADE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. RAINEATER, LLC

Filing 42

ORDER AND JUDGMENT. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27 ) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39 ) is GRANTED. JUDGMENT is entered, in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, in the amount of $118,307.40, plus interest accruing at the rate of 19% per annum, from 10/26/11 until the date of entry of this Order and Judgment. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 6/20/16. (dcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KOREA TRADE INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAINEATER, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-84E
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER AND JUDGMENT
I. ORDER
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) will be denied, and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) will be granted.
Defendant claims that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue because it failed to acquire a
certificate to do business in the Commonwealth, pursuant to 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 411(a).1
As Plaintiff notes, however, foreign insurance corporations are exempted from the certification
requirement. See id., § 411(g). Plaintiff asserts, and Defendant has failed to contest, that
Plaintiff qualifies as a foreign insurance corporation. See Doc. 40-1 at ¶ 1.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s statutory scheme identifies activities that “do not constitute
doing business in [the] Commonwealth,” including debt-collection and “[d]oing business in
interstate or foreign commerce.” See 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 403(a)(8) & (a)(11). These are the
activities identified in the Complaint, and Defendant offers no evidence or argument to the

Formerly codified at 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4141. The Court will refer to the relevant statutes
under their current formulation.
1

contrary. Defendant has not demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment, and its Motion
(Doc. 27), therefore, is DENIED.
Turning to Plaintiff’s Motion, its counsel has put forth uncontested evidence that in 2011,
pursuant to the underlying parties’ sales agreements, Defendant took delivery of approximately
60,000 sets of wiper blades and never paid for them. See Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 40) at 8-9 (citing record
evidence). Defendant acknowledged and ratified its payment obligation, through the entry of an
“Agreement for Postponing [Payment] Due Date.” See Doc. 40-7. Defendant agreed to pay an
outstanding balance of $118,304.40, along with interest accruing at 19% per annum, accruing
from the date of the postponement-agreement, October 26, 2011. See id.
Although Defendant later suggested that it was absolved, partially or in whole, because
some of the wiper blades were non-conforming, this position appears facially inconsistent with
Defendant’s entry into the postpone agreement, along with its subsequent acknowledgements of
the debt. See Pl.’s Br. at 13-14. In any event, Plaintiff has introduced evidence, unrefuted by
Defendant, that Defendant never provided notice of nonconformity to the seller (Plaintiff’s
assignor). See id. at 12-13.
In sum, Defendant has offered little more than excuse and delay in connection with its
clear obligation to make payment. After raising multiple technicality-driven arguments and
defenses, it offers no substantive resistance to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
See Dkt. in this case (revealing no response in opposition by Defendant). It appears that
Defendant’s strategy here was to “run out the clock,” and that finally has happened. Plaintiff’s
Motion (Doc. 39) is well taken, and it is GRANTED.
The proper measure of damages is established in Plaintiff’s briefing and accompanying
evidentiary materials. Plaintiff has put forth alternative, if marginally different, damages

2

calculations. See Pl.’s Br. at 11-12, 16. The Court will adopt Plaintiff’s most straightforward
model -- the one based on Defendant’s breach of the postponement-agreement.2 Thus, the Court
hereby enters the following:
II. JUDGMENT
Consistent with the Order above, Judgement is entered, in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant, in the amount of $118,307.40, plus interest accruing at the rate of 19% per annum,
from October 26, 2011 until the date of entry of this Order and Judgment. A separate order
under Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 20, 2016

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

In addition to the alternative damages calculations, the Court also declines to reach Plaintiff’s
request for summary judgment on its claim for account-stated. See Pl.’s Br. at 14-15.
The statement of account claim is, as a practical matter, duplicative of its request for judgment
based on Defendant’s breaches of the sales and postponement agreements.
2

3