Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Barron Industries, Inc.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Barron Industries, Inc.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

December 18, 1992, Decided ; December 18, 1992, Filed

3: CV 91-1363

Opinion

 [*357] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (hereinafter USF & G) brings this diversity based declaratory judgment action against its insureds, Barron Industries, Inc., New York Blower Company, and Mechanovent Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as Barron) to determine whether an insurance policy issued by USF & G to Barron affords coverage for certain property damage claims asserted against Barron. This coverage dispute arises directly out of an underlying action in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas wherein Continental Cogeneration Corporation (hereinafter CCC), Continental Energy Associates (hereinafter CEA) and Dravo Corporation are adverse parties to Barron.

Currently, there are two motions pending before the Court: 1

(1) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and (2) Barron's motion for a Protective Order and to strike. (Doc.Nos. 16 and 32, respectively). The Court will review and analyze both motions in the present Memorandum and Order.

 [**3] BACKGROUND

In order to fully understand the present action, it is necessary first to describe the events leading up to and involved in the pending state court litigation.

On March 19, 1987, CEA and Dravo entered into a "Turnkey Construction Contract" 2 whereby Dravo agreed to design and construct by April 10, 1989, a Gasification Facility for CEA's cogeneration plant in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, on December 27, 1987, Dravo entered into a Purchase Order Agreement with Defendant insureds (Barron, New York Blower Co., and Mechanovent Corp.). In accordance with the terms of the Purchase Order Barron was to:

Provide all necessary labor, material, supervision, inspection, equipment and supplies to fabricate, assemble, clean, prime and paint, test and load for shipment to the Humboldt Gasification Facility in Hazelton, Pennsylvania two (2) Process Gas Fans in strict compliance with Dravo Wellman Specification W4412-E-12341 General Revision dated October 14, 1987, General Mechanical Specification W4412 dated September 24, 1986, and the Technical Classifications and Exceptions.

(Doc.No. 30, Exh. E, p. 3).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

809 F. Supp. 355 *; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20123 **

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff v. BARRON INDUSTRIES, INC., THE NEW YORK BLOWER COMPANY, MECHANOVENT CORP., DRAVO CORP., AND CONTINENTAL ENERGY ASSOCIATES Defendants

Disposition:  [**1]  USF & G's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Doc.No. 16). Barron's Motion For a Protective Order and To Strike is DENIED. (Doc.No. 32).

CORE TERMS

property damage, coverage, notice, occurrence, insured, damages, Fans, summary judgment, attorney-client, policies, seal, contends, duct, physical injury, genuine, summary judgment motion, work product doctrine, tangible property, material fact, policy period, loss of use, Gasification, supplied, motion for a protective order, documents, explosion, asserts, letters

Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Supporting Materials, Discovery Materials, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, General Overview, Judgments, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Motions for Summary Judgment, Opposing Materials, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Materiality of Facts, Burdens of Proof, Contracts Law, Defenses, Ambiguities & Mistakes, Insurance Law, Policy Interpretation, Ambiguous Terms, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Business Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Damages, Duty to Defend, Property Claims, Property Insurance, Coverage, Loss of Use, Products & Workmanship, Appellate Briefs, Attorneys, Liability & Performance Standards, Notice to Insurers, Prejudice to Insurers, Reasonableness, Evidence, Privileges, Attorney-Client Privilege, Legal Ethics, Client Relations, Duties to Client, Duty of Confidentiality, Scope, Privileged Communications, Work Product Doctrine, Inspection & Production Requests, Business & Corporate Compliance, Ownership, Conveyances, Assignments