eNotes: Liability – December 2022 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Federal Case Summaries

Grennell v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171738, 2022 WL 4386638

Decided: September 22, 2022

A corporate employer may validly waive uninsured or underinsured motorists benefits that would otherwise be available to an employee injured while using a company car for personal purposes.

Background

An employee was injured while using his employer’s vehicle for personal purposes, as he was allowed to do. The vehicle was insured by the employer pursuant to a business auto policy which provided no uninsured or underinsured motorists benefits. The employer’s casualty risk manager executed a rejection of uninsured and underinsured motorists benefits using a waiver form that complied with Section 1731 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1731. The employee recovered the other driver’s liability limits and he also received the maximum underinsured motorists benefits available under his personal auto policy. After his claim against the employer’s business auto policy was denied, the employee commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking to avoid the waiver. The Court upheld the waiver and granted summary judgment to the insurer.

Holding

The Court held that an employer, as the owner of the vehicle and the first named insured under the policy, may validly waive uninsured and underinsured motorists benefits. The waiver form complied with Section 1731. Allowing a corporate insured to waive uninsured and underinsured motorists benefits is consistent with the legislative policy of controlling escalating insurance costs and it furthers the statutory directive that such coverage must remain optional. The waiver benefitted the employer because no premiums were charged for any UM and UIM coverage. The employer was not required to furnish such coverage for the benefit of its employees. The employee was able to protect his own interests by exercising his right to elect such coverage through his personal auto policy.

Questions about this case can be directed to Louis Long at (412) 926-1424 or llong@tthlaw.com.

Pukanecz v. Target Corp.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158015

Decided: September 1, 2022

Summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to show tenant either owned or leased the parking lot, or otherwise assumed a contractual duty to maintain it.

Background

Plaintiff Pukanecz fell on ice in the parking lot in front of a Target store in the Westmont Plaza Shopping center. Pukanecz testified that he slipped on a thin coating of ice on black macadam, only noticing the ice was there after he had fallen. The Westmont Plaza Shopping Center where Pukanecz fell was owned by Kimco Westmont 614, Inc., a subsidiary of Kimco Realty. Kimco Westmont entered into a contract with a third party for the purpose of seasonal snow removal services.

Target argued that it had no duty to maintain the parking lot, as it did not own or lease the parking lot and it did not have any contractual duty to maintain it. Target asserted that Kimco Westmont was responsible for maintenance of the parking lot. Pukanecz argued Target should have been aware of ice on the surface of the parking lot in front of its store, and therefore, Target should have been under a duty to remedy it. The Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find Target had a duty to maintain the subject parking lot as Pukanecz failed to show that Target either owned or leased the parking lot, or otherwise assumed a contractual duty to maintain it. To the contrary, the lease between Target and Kimco required Kimco to maintain the common areas. Accordingly, summary judgment was entered in Target’s favor, and Kimco’s was denied.

Holding

In order to hold a tenant responsible for maintenance of a common area the tenant must either own or lease the parking lot, or otherwise assume a contractual duty to maintain it.

Questions about this case can be directed to Jonathan Danko at (717) 441-3957 or jdanko@tthlaw.com.