Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Paiea Kalili v. State Farm Firs and Casualty Company
Date: 12-26-2024
Case Number: 754 EDA 2023
Judge: Not Available
Court: Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Philadelphia Insurance law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Unknown Insurance Defense Lawyer
Description:
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a breach of insurance contract theory.
"The interpretation of the contractual language in an insurance policy is a pure issue of law which we review under a de novo standard." Kramer v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 271 A.3d 431, 435 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2021), reversed on other grounds, 318 A.3d 1031 (Pa. 2024). "[W]e are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law[] but may reach our own conclusions." Kline v. Traveler's Personal Sec. Ins. Co., 223 A.3d 677, 686 (Pa. Super. 2019). The three elements needed to establish breach of contract are the existence of a contract, a breach of duty imposed by the contract, and damages. See Sullivan v. Chartwell Inv. Partners, LP, 873 A.2d 710, 716 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).
An insurance policy is not intended to cover every conceivable loss or damage to an insured item. See Port Auth. Of New York & New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 226, 234 (3d Cir. 2002).[2] Indeed, a basic tenet of insurance law is an insurance policy is only intended to provide coverage for unanticipated, unforeseen, and accidental risks. See id. at 235. An insurance policy is never intended to cover known, anticipated, and foreseen risks that are certain to occur. See id. In this regard, normal wear and tear of any insurable item is always anticipated, foreseen, and predictable. See Chartis Prop. Cas. Co. v. Inganamort, 953 F.3d 231, 235 (3d Cir. 2020)
(stating an insured must show the loss occurred by chance). Thus, the risk of loss remains on the owner of the insured item to maintain the insured item or do necessary upkeep to prevent loss or damage due to normal wear and tear. See id. at 236 n. 9 (concluding allowing coverage for damages resulting from failure to maintain property "would effectively convert" first-party property insurance policies "into general maintenance contracts"); see also Port Auth., 311 F.3d at 236.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
"The interpretation of the contractual language in an insurance policy is a pure issue of law which we review under a de novo standard." Kramer v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 271 A.3d 431, 435 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2021), reversed on other grounds, 318 A.3d 1031 (Pa. 2024). "[W]e are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law[] but may reach our own conclusions." Kline v. Traveler's Personal Sec. Ins. Co., 223 A.3d 677, 686 (Pa. Super. 2019). The three elements needed to establish breach of contract are the existence of a contract, a breach of duty imposed by the contract, and damages. See Sullivan v. Chartwell Inv. Partners, LP, 873 A.2d 710, 716 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).
An insurance policy is not intended to cover every conceivable loss or damage to an insured item. See Port Auth. Of New York & New Jersey v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 311 F.3d 226, 234 (3d Cir. 2002).[2] Indeed, a basic tenet of insurance law is an insurance policy is only intended to provide coverage for unanticipated, unforeseen, and accidental risks. See id. at 235. An insurance policy is never intended to cover known, anticipated, and foreseen risks that are certain to occur. See id. In this regard, normal wear and tear of any insurable item is always anticipated, foreseen, and predictable. See Chartis Prop. Cas. Co. v. Inganamort, 953 F.3d 231, 235 (3d Cir. 2020)
(stating an insured must show the loss occurred by chance). Thus, the risk of loss remains on the owner of the insured item to maintain the insured item or do necessary upkeep to prevent loss or damage due to normal wear and tear. See id. at 236 n. 9 (concluding allowing coverage for damages resulting from failure to maintain property "would effectively convert" first-party property insurance policies "into general maintenance contracts"); see also Port Auth., 311 F.3d at 236.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
Outcome:
Motion granted.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Paiea Kalili v. State Farm Firs and Casualty Company?
The outcome was: Motion granted. Affirmed
Which court heard Paiea Kalili v. State Farm Firs and Casualty Company?
This case was heard in Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, PA. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in Paiea Kalili v. State Farm Firs and Casualty Company?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Philadelphia Insurance law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Unknown Insurance Defense Lawyer.
When was Paiea Kalili v. State Farm Firs and Casualty Company decided?
This case was decided on December 26, 2024.