Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Equipment Company

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 25, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00551
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FILED SCRANTON PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL : MAR 25 2022 CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, : * PER □□□ Plaintiff, : V. : 3:21-CV-551 : (JUDGE MARIANI) TIDEWATER EQUIPMENT : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) COMPANY and MID-STATE : FORESTRY EQUIPMENT, LLC, Defendants. “Yy ORDER AND NOW, THIS >t ‘AY OF MARCH 2022, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 31) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein; 2. Defendant Mid-State’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED with the result that Counts I, Ill, and IV of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) are DISMISSED;

1 The Court notes that the R&R’s analysis of the economic loss doctrine relies in part on Werwinski v. Ford Motor Company, 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). (See Doc. 31 at 11, 20.) Werwinski held in part that the economic loss doctrine applies to UTPCPL claims. 286 F.3d at 670-682. This holding was abrogated by Earl v. NVR, Inc., 990 F.3d 310, 314 (recognizing the tension between Werwinski and the Pennsylvania Superior Court's decision in Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)). Because this case does not involve UTPCPL claims, the abrogation of Werwinski as to the economic loss doctrine’s applicability to UTPCPL claims does not affect the R&R’s reliance on Werwinski as to the economic loss doctrine’s applicability to tort claims.

3. Defendant Tidewater’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is DENIED; 4, Counts II, V, and VI of Plaintiff's Amegeecom aint (Doc. 11) go forward.

TF Sula eu Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge