ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY v. CAROL & DAVE'S ROADHOUSE, INC.
Filing
25
MEMORADNUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion to Dismiss Count 2 of Third-Party Complaint. The third-party claim against Fairfield VFD is dismissed and it is removed as a third-party defendant. On or before October 11 , Carol & Dave's may replead the liability of Fairfield VFD as an affirmative defense and/or counterclaim against Arch. Arch shall respond to the amended pleading on or before October 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 9/27/11. (mh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
) 2:11-cv-801
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
as Subrogee of FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY NO. 1,
Plaintiff,
v
CAROL & DAVE'S ROADHOUSE, INC.,
Defendant and ThirdParty Plaintiff,
v
FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANY NO. 1 and DEAN CALDWELL and
TRISA CALDWELL,
Third-Party Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Pending before the Court is the MOTION OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P.
12(b)(6) TO DISMISS COUNT II OF DEFENDANT’S THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
(Document No. 15), with brief in support, filed by the original Plaintiff Arch Insurance Company
(“Arch”), as subrogee of Fairfield Township Volunteer Fire Department (“Fairfield VFD”).
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Carol & Dave’s Roadhouse, Inc. (“Carol & Dave’s”) filed a brief
in opposition to the motion and it is ripe for disposition.
Factual and Procedural History
This case arises from a wedding day fiasco. Dean and Trisa Caldwell (the “Caldwells”)
allegedly rented the Fairfield VFD fire hall on October 3, 2009 to host a wedding reception.
Carol & Dave’s was the caterer. The rental agreement limited use of the kitchen to the water and
ice machine, but this information allegedly was not conveyed to Carol & Dave’s. There was a
1
gas stove in the kitchen. When an employee of Carol & Dave’s used the stove, it caught fire and
the fire hall was destroyed. Allegedly, Fairfield VFD knew that the stove and/or its connection
to the power source was defective. Arch paid in excess of $500,000 in benefits to Fairfield VFD
under its insurance policy.
Arch filed this subrogation action against Carol & Dave’s to recover the amounts it paid
under the policy, alleging negligence. Carol & Dave’s filed an “Answer and Crossclaim.”1 The
same day, Carol & Dave’s filed a two-count Third-Party Complaint. In Count 1, Carol & Dave’s
alleges that the Caldwells were negligent in failing to communicate the limitations on the use of
the kitchen.2 In Count 2, Carol & Dave’s alleges that Fairfield VFD was negligent in failing to
communicate the defective condition of the stove. Arch filed the pending motion to dismiss
Count 2 of the Third-Party Complaint.
Discussion
The Court may exercise jurisdiction over this case arising under Pennsylvania law due to
the diversity of citizenship of the parties. In essence, Arch contends that under Pennsylvania
law, because it filed the original complaint as subrogee of Fairfield VFD, Carol & Dave’s cannot
assert a third-party claim against its subrogor. In Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Martin, 2011 WL
2790265 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2011) (involving a similar subrogation claim arising from a house
fire), Judge Joyner recently addressed this precise issue and stated: “Subrogation is defined as
the “substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand
1
No “crossclaim” was asserted in this document (Document No. 6), although, as their “Third Defense,” Defendant
asserted that Arch’s damages were caused by the Caldwells and/or Fairfield VFD. The Court’s electronic filing
system references that a “counterclaim” was attached to the Third Party Complaint (Document No. 7), but no such
document is attached.
2
Dean Caldwell filed an answer to the third-party complaint and crossclaims against Carol & Dave’s, Fairfield VFD
and Trisa Caldwell. Dean Caldwell avers, inter alia, that he does not reside with Trisa Caldwell and that he did not
enter into a rental agreement with Fairfield VFD by which use of the kitchen was restricted.
2
or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or
claim, and its rights, remedies or securities.” Id. at *2 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary). An
insurance company has the right to stand in the shoes of its insured to collect from the alleged
tortfeasor after it has paid an amount which represents the tortfeasor’s debt to the insured. Id.
Similarly, the insurance company is “subject to all defenses that could be raised” against the
insured. Id. Accordingly, Judge Joyner dismissed a third-party complaint against the
homeowner and reasoned that the defendants’ assertions should have been filed as affirmative
defenses or as a counterclaim against the insurance company. Id. This recent analysis of the
applicable Pennsylvania law is persuasive. Because Fairfield VFD is, in essence, the plaintiff in
this case, it cannot also be a third-party defendant. As explained in Allstate, an individual cannot
be liable in tort to himself. Id. Accordingly, Carol & Dave’s may not assert a third-party
complaint against Fairfield VFD.
That does not end the analysis, however. Arch asks the Court to dismiss the third-party
claim against Fairfield VFD with prejudice. In Schwab v. Erie Lackawanna R. Co., 438 F.2d 62,
64 (3d Cir. 1971), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recognized that “crossclaims” and
“counterclaims” are sometimes mis-labeled and affirmed the district court’s decision to disregard
this “technical error.” Carol & Dave’s has requested leave to re-assert the liability of Fairfield
VFD as an affirmative defense and/or counterclaim to Arch’s claims. Leave to amend, at this
early stage of the case, is to be liberally granted and is appropriate under the facts and
circumstances of this case.
In summary, the MOTION OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) TO
DISMISS COUNT II OF DEFENDANT’S THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT (Document No. 15)
will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The third-party claim against
3
Fairfield VFD will be dismissed and Fairfield VFD will be removed as a party. However, Carol
& Dave’s will have the opportunity to re-assert the liability of Fairfield VFD as an affirmative
defense and/or counterclaim to Arch’s claims.
An appropriate Order follows.
McVerry, J.
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
)
) 2:11-cv-801
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY
as Subrogee of FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY NO. 1,
Plaintiff,
v
CAROL & DAVE'S ROADHOUSE, INC.,
Defendant and ThirdParty Plaintiff,
v
FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANY NO. 1 and DEAN CALDWELL and
TRISA CALDWELL,
Third-Party Defendants.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2011, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the
MOTION OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO F.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6) TO DISMISS COUNT II OF
DEFENDANT’S THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT (Document No. 15) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. The third-party claim against Fairfield VFD is dismissed and
Fairfield VFD is removed as a third-party defendant. On or before October 11, 2011, Carol &
Dave’s may re-plead the liability of Fairfield VFD as an affirmative defense and/or counterclaim
to Arch’s claims. Arch shall file a response to the amended pleading on or before October 21,
2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
United States District Judge
5
cc:
Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire
Email: jsotland@defensecounsel.com
Mark L. Reilly, Esquire
Email: Mark1.Reilly@cna.com
James W. Harvey, Esquire
Email: jharvey@margolisedelstein.com
Mark R. Lane, Esquire
Email: mrl@dellmoser.com
6
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?