5 day forecast
Penn State, insurer spar over costs in Sandusky case
Share with others:
A dispute between Penn State University and its insurance company over who should cover the costs of a civil suit stemming from the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal is set to be litigated in the First Judicial District, following a Philadelphia judge's ruling that the forum was not inconvenient for the college.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary Glazer issued a one-page order this month denying Penn State's motion to transfer proceedings filed by its insurance company in Philadelphia to Centre County.
It appeared to be the final order on a venue dispute arising out of the coverage litigation.
Earlier this month, another Philadelphia judge granted a motion in which the insurance company, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association (PMA) Insurance Co., asked the court to bring a separate action filed by Penn State to a Philadelphia court.
Judge Glazer's order from two weeks ago came with a footnote, in which he said Penn State failed to demonstrate Philadelphia was an "oppressive and vexatious" forum to the university and its witnesses.
He also cautioned the university against using nonprecedential memorandum opinions in support of its arguments, as it had in a reply, noting the court was hopeful Penn State, in the future, would follow this "most basic legal principle."
"At best, defendant PSU has merely shown that Philadelphia is an inconvenient forum for some of its witnesses," Judge Glazer said in the footnote. "Mere inconvenience is insufficient to transfer venue."
PMA initially sued the university in Philadelphia in January, seeking a declaratory judgment limiting defense costs and indemnity for which the university could claim coverage in a case stemming from the Sandusky scandal.
Penn State followed with its own legal action, alleging PMA breached its contract with the school and acted in bad faith by both initially denying coverage and then following with a lawsuit. It asked for a Centre County jury to decide all matters triable by jury.
PMA had moved in February to coordinate and transfer Penn State's lawsuit to Philadelphia to eschew the "unavoidable risk" of the courts issuing contradictory decisions in the two cases. In an April 10 order, Judge Arnold New granted that request.
Judge Glazer's April 20 order disposes of a similar petition from Penn State, in which the university argues under a different rule that litigation should take place in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas.
PMA's attorney, Steven Engelmyer of Philadelphia firm Kleinbard Bell & Brecker, said the decision brings a welcome conclusion to the venue dispute.
"With this order, it is clear that the court has decided this case will be litigated in the Philadelphia Commerce Court program," Mr. Engelmyer said.
The underlying civil case -- Doe A v. Second Mile -- was the first lawsuit filed in response to the allegations that Mr. Sandusky used his position within the university and his Second Mile charity and his standing as a former Penn State football coach to sexually assault young boys. The state has charged him with 52 counts of sex-related offenses.
Jerold Oshinsky, a California attorney with Jenner & Block, represents Penn State along with Joseph Green of Lee Green & Reiter in State College.
In PMA's initial complaint, filed in late January in Philadelphia, the insurance company pointed to an abuse or molestation exclusion in the second of three consecutive general liability policies, arguing that such would excuse it from paying for the school's legal costs. There appeared to be a narrow, two-month window in which PMA acknowledged Penn State could be afforded coverage based on its policy.
However, that would come down to facts that have yet to be established in Doe A, namely whether the alleged abuse started before March 1, 1992, when the university's policy changed to incorporate the abuse and molestation exclusion. That case would likely stall until the prosecution of Mr. Sandusky is closed.
The school, in its separate action, argued PMA breached its contract with the university by refusing to cover Penn State's defense costs and for refusing liability coverage for any damages stemming from Doe A. The university also pled an "anticipatory breach of contract" count to spell out that a breach had already taken place before Doe A has proceeded to litigation, and that the breach applies to any such claims against Penn State.
First Published April 30, 2012 12:00 am
