The Archdiocese failed to plead breach of contract against the County for failure to name the Archdiocese as an additional insured under the liability policy. Pachella v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2017 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 595 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Aug. 14, 2017).
Richard and Pachella filed a complaint against the Archdiocese, alleging that Mrs. Pachella was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk outside of St. Patrick's Parish. At the time, the County was leasing St. Patrick's premises for use as an election polling place. The Archdiocese filed a third party complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract claims under a Lease Agreement between St. Patrick's and the County.
The Lease Agreement generally stated that the County agreed to maintain liability insurance concerning the use of the premises. A separate License Agreement more specifically stated the County would maintain a policy of liability insurance written on an occurrence basis, naming the Archdiocese as an insured, and having minimum policy limits of $1,000,000 for bodily injury. The License Agreement also required the County to defend, indemnify, and hold the Archdiocese harmless for claims arising out of any bodily injuries.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the County on the Archdiocese's third party complaint. The County was immune from the negligence claim under the Tort Claims Act. Further, the underlying negligence claims sounded in tort, not in contract, and the legislature did not intend for a local agency to be held liable for tort damages under a contract theory. Therefore, the indemnification provision was unenforceable.
The Pachellas and the Archdiocese reached a settlement as to all claims between them. The Archdiocese then filed a notice of appeal. The County argued that the Archdiocese did not properly allege a breach of contract claim regarding the contractual insurance requirement, and, therefore, the claim was waived.
The appellate court agreed that the complaint failed to state a breach of contract claim based on the County's failure to obtain the requisite liability insurance naming the Archdiocese as an insured. In its complaint, the Archdiocese alleged that the accident causing Mrs. Pachella's injuries was due to the County's negligence in "failing to act with diligence and care" and that if it was found liable, it would be "because the County breached its contract and duties." The complaint neglected to allege that the County breached the License Agreement by failing to obtain the requisite liability insurance nor did the Archdiocese seek to amend the Third Party Complaint. Rather, the Archdiocese had consistently maintained that the County breached the License Agreement by refusing to defend and indemnify it, not by failing to obtain the requisite insurance. The Archdiocese sought contribution and/or indemnification based on the tort claim and never alleged any other damages that resulted form the alleged breach.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the County's motion for summary judgment and dismissing it as a party.
