St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Lewis

I do not normally file a dissenting opinion in a diversity case, particularly where the only issue presented involves the coverage of an “umbrella” insurance policy. I do so in this appeal, however, because:

1. The majority has ignored Third Circuit precedents which bar directed verdicts when material facts are in issue and which require that issues of ultimate material fact be resolved by a jury even when the underlying historical facts are largely or entirely undisputed;1 and

2. The majority has failed or refused to recognize the applicability of Pennsylvania law in at least these particulars: