BISHOPS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION v. PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY

BISHOPS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION v. PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY No. 2275 WDA 2007 and 35 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 225 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/24/2009
	Appeal from the Order December 10, 2007 and Judgment Entered December 11, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No. G.D. 05-15366 and GD 05-015366 GD 0-015366
Before: BENDER, BOWES and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Bishops, Inc., (Bishops) and Penn National Insurance (Penn National) cross-appeal the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment and awarding damages in favor of Bishops limited to the $5000 in coverage afforded by an extra-cost endorsement (the Penn Pac Endorsement) to an all-risks insurance policy that Bishops purchased from Penn National. In its cross-appeal, designated by the parties as primary pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2136(a), Penn National asserts that Bishops’ claim is precluded by the concurrent cause provision of the basic policy to which the Penn Pac Endorsement was added because the damage for which Bishops claimed coverage was jointly caused by flooding. In its cross appeal, Bishops rejoins that this Court has rendered concurrent causation clauses unenforceable, declining to recognize them in the presence of an affirmative grant of coverage for which the insured paid an added premium. Bishops argues further that the Penn Pac Endorsement, which provided coverage for sewer or drain back up, changed the definition of a “covered cause of loss” in the underlying policy to provide coverage to both physical losses contemplated by the endorsement itself and losses sustained by business interruption occasioned by the events that caused the physical loss. Upon review, we find Penn National’s concurrent cause exclusion unenforceable. Moreover, we conclude that Bishops is entitled to coverage under both the Penn Pac Endorsement and the Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form of the underlying policy. Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand this case for additional proceedings consistent with this disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here