Insurance

July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Insurance

QUI TAM ACTION-INSURANCE Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co vs. Arnold, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 692.  This case involves defense of a case based upon the False Claims Act.  The exception invoked by Nationwide was the Business Pursuits exception.  Summary judgment should have been granted for Nationwide, claims the insurance company because of the “Business Pursuits” exclusion in the umbrella policy.  The court considered this a close case.   Nationwide carries the burden of proving the applicability of the exclusion.   The complaint does not contest specific actions taken by Arnold while he was engaged in his work at PennDot.  Arnold’s position had nothing to do with interpreting contracts or billing.   CMC is not seeking to impose liability on Arnold for something he did at, or in the context of, his employment.   All the context CMC complains of were actions taken by Arnold outside of his job.   According to CMC, Arnold pursued his qui tam action because he personally disagreed with how PennDot officials interpreted the contracts and wanted to benefit himself financially.  We conclude that Arnold’s litigation of the supposedly basis qui tam action against CMC did not…