Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania partially granted National Liability & Fire Insurance Company’s motion for default judgment against Brimar Transit, Inc. The court awarded $86,981.09 in defense costs under the insurance policy but denied recovery of the $150,000 settlement payment under an unjust enrichment theory. The court concluded that the policy and settlement agreement provided litigable defenses to the settlement-reimbursement claim.
Holdings
- Default judgment was warranted against Brimar for $86,981.09 in defense costs because the policy expressly permitted reimbursement after National defended Brimar, reserved its reimbursement rights, paid the defense costs, and it was later determined that no coverage existed.
- National could not recover the settlement payment under unjust enrichment because the parties were governed by enforceable contracts—the insurance policy and settlement agreement—and the policy did not provide a right to reimbursement of settlement payments.
- No evidentiary hearing was required because the defense-cost damages were a sum certain and could be determined from the complaint, declaration, and supporting materials.
Questions Presented
- Whether National was entitled to default judgment against Brimar for reimbursement of $86,981.09 in defense costs under the insurance policy.
- Whether National was entitled to default judgment against Brimar for the $150,000 settlement payment under an unjust-enrichment theory.
- Whether a default-judgment hearing was required to determine the requested damages.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (15)
- Hritz v. Woma Corp., 732 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d Cir. 1984)(followed)
- Thornton v. West, 529 F. App'x 107, 110 (3d Cir. June 17, 2013)(cited)
- Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Murphy v. Ability Recovery Servs., LLC, 2019 WL 7708592, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2019)(followed)
- Bower v. NRA Grp., LLC, 2019 WL 3306515, at *2 (W.D. Pa. July 22, 2019)(followed)
- Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Yakubets, 3 F. Supp. 3d 261, 271 (E.D. Pa. 2014)(followed)
- E. Elec. Corp. of N.J. v. Shoemaker Constr. Co., 657 F. Supp. 2d 545, 552 (E.D. Pa. 2009)(followed)
- Rainey v. Diamond State Port Corp., 354 F. App'x 722, 724 (3d Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Cyprus Mines Corp. v. M & R Indus., Inc., 2015 WL 1469529, at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2015)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…