Legal Opinion
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Security Guards, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 4, 2003No. Civil Action 01-4013PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
BAYLSON, District Judge.
This subrogation action requires the Court to construe a limitation of liability clause. In doing so, the Court must address any differences between negligence and gross negligence under Pennsylvania law. The underlying facts concern a fire that occurred at an industrial facility operated by Dana Corporation, a truck frame manufacturer. Dana’s insurer, plaintiff Royal Indemnity Company, paid Dana more than $16.5 million as a result of the fíre, and now, as subrogee of Dana, seeks damages of at least $7 million from defendant Security Guards, Inc., which…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Steuart v. McChesneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- In Re ScheidmantelSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Great Northern Insurance v. ADT Security Services, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
- United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Sonitrol Management Corp.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2008
- Tutein v. ParrySuperior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2006
- Leprino Foods Co. v. Gress Poultry, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.