Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-23-2009
Liberty Mutl Ins Co v. James Sweeney
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-1353
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Liberty Mutl Ins Co v. James Sweeney" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1713.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1713
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 08-1353
____________
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
d/b/a LIBERTY MUTUAL PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant
v.
JAMES E. SWEENEY
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 06-cv-02227)
District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 3, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, SLOVITER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 23, 2009)
____________
OPINION
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of James Sweeney and its denial of Liberty Mutual’s cross-motion for
summary judgment.
Liberty Mutual denied Sweeney’s insurance claim following an automobile
accident, citing three exclusions in Sweeney’s automobile policy: (1) the vehicle was
being used in an auto business at the time of the accident; (2) the vehicle was being used
in a way that was not intended by the owner; and (3) Sweeney was driving a vehicle that
he did not own, but used regularly. Liberty Mutual filed a declaratory judgment action
and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On November 21, 2007, the District Court denied Liberty Mutual’s motion for
summary judgment, finding that “there remains [sic] disputed issues of material fact”
which prevented an order of summary judgment at that time.
In apparent contradiction to its prior finding that disputed issues of material fact
existed, on January 4, 2008, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Sweeney. The District Court did not explain what changed since November 21, 2007
such that summary judgment became proper. Moreover, the District Court addressed only
one of the three policy exclusions asserted by Liberty Mutual: the non-intended-use
exception. This was improper. As an insurer seeking to deny coverage under a policy,
Liberty Mutual need only prove that one of its asserted policy exclusions applies. See,
e.g., Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. C.J.H., Inc., 845 F. Supp. 1090, 1094 (E.D. Pa.),
2
aff’d, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994). The District Court’s determination that the insured
should prevail on one of the policy’s exclusions does not bear on the applicability of the
other two exclusions. Therefore, the District Court erred in failing to address the other
exclusions asserted by Liberty Mutual.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily remand the case to the District Court
for consideration and analysis of the two exclusions cited by Liberty Mutual and further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
3