TIG Insurance Co. v. MECO Constructors, Inc.

No. CIV. A. 97-3162 (E.D. Pa. January 24, 2000)

ELR Digest

The court holds that an insurer has no duty to insure or indemnify a construction company being sued as a third-party defendant for disposing of toxic and/or hazardous waste. The court first holds that it need not choose between the laws of New Jersey and Pennsylvania because the result is the same regardless of the law applied. The party seeking the benefits of a lost contract bears the burden of establishing the existence or issuance of the contract and the terms of that contract by at least a preponderance of the evidence. The court then holds that the deficiencies in the company's evidence entitle the insurer to judgment as a matter of law. The company, which failed to respond to the insurer's motion for summary judgment, has not come forward with any argument or evidence that it held a policy with the insurer. The insurer, on the other hand, has produced clear, convincing, unrefuted evidence that no policy agreement between it and the company existed during the relevant time period. Consequently, the court holds that the insurer is not required to provide coverage to the company or to defend the company in the underlying case.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (4 pp., ELR No. L-176).

Counsel for Plaintiff
Wendy H. Koch
Koch & Corboy
Jenkintown Plaza
101 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 460, Jenkintown PA 19046
(215) 881-2280

Counsel for Defendants
John Harrington
Harrington & Caldwell
100 N. 17th St., Philadelphia PA 19103
(215) 751-1135

[30 ELR 20360]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]