Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants make several arguments for summary judgment in their favor. First, they argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx released the defendants from liability for the claims in the current suit in the Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Settlement Agreement. Second, they argue that this lawsuit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx‟s crossclaims in the Oehrtman, Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx lawsuits were discontinued with prejudice. Third, the defendants argue that Project Transition is immune from Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx‟s claims under the Pennsylvania Mental Health and Procedures Act. Fourth, Philadelphia Indemnity argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx‟s claims against it for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Philadelphia Indemnity argues that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx in the Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx lawsuits because Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx was not an “insured” under the CGL Policy. Finally, Philadelphia Indemnity argued in its motion that it is entitled to summary judgment because the CGL Policy‟s coverage of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx was “excess,” and therefore Philadelphia Indemnity had no duty to defend or indemnify Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxx in the Oehrtman, Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx lawsuits. At oral argument, the defendant abandoned this argument. The Court will address each of the defendants‟ arguments in turn. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the defendants‟ motion for summary judgment.
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket No. 465] is GRANTED. Counts nine, ten, eleven, and twelve of Plaintiff ’s Third Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
