Clarendon National Insurance v. City of York

Citation: 121 F. App'x 940Docket: No. 03-4680

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; February 7, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Lillie Belle Allen, an African American, was killed during a racial riot in York, Pennsylvania, on July 21, 1969. A dormant murder investigation was revived in 2000, leading to indictments against then-mayor Charles Robertson and nine former police officers. Robertson was acquitted, while two officers were convicted of second-degree murder and seven pled guilty to lesser charges. Robertson applied for an insurance policy from Clarendon National Insurance Company for the City of York, which provided Public Official Liability Coverage and Employment Practices Liability Coverage starting August 19, 2000. After the Allen estate indicated intentions to file a civil suit based on the 1969 incident, Clarendon sought a declaration to avoid defending York in the suit, claiming the policy was void due to misrepresentations and that the claims were excluded under the policy's terms. The Allen lawsuit included eight counts, four for federal civil rights violations and four for state law claims. The District Court ruled in favor of Clarendon, determining that the claims fell under the policy’s 'deliberate acts' and 'law enforcement' exclusions. Under Pennsylvania law, an insurer must defend an insured if any claim in a lawsuit potentially falls within coverage, interpreting the policy as a whole and favoring the insured's allegations. The Court affirmed that the federal claims in the Allen complaint fell within the deliberate acts exclusion, as they involved intentional violations of constitutional rights. York contended that the state law claims should invoke a duty to defend, but Clarendon argued that these claims also fell under the law enforcement exclusion, which applied since York had not purchased the necessary law enforcement liability coverage.

The claims in the Allen lawsuit are deemed to fall under the law enforcement exception, as the plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants, police officers of the City of York, were acting in their official capacities during the events of the 1969 shooting. This incident followed a history of discriminatory practices against African Americans by the police and was precipitated by the shooting of a white officer, which incited officers to encourage violent retaliation from white gangs. On July 21, 1969, the Allen vehicle was directed into a situation where it was met with gunfire from white gang members, while the officer defendants failed to secure the crime scene or take any investigative actions.

The City of York argues that the officers' inaction contradicted established police policies and thus was not part of their law enforcement duties. They also claim that a law enforcement officer is defined by their role in apprehending and aiding in the prosecution of criminals, suggesting that failure to do so negates the law enforcement classification. However, precedents indicate that claims involving misconduct or negligence by law enforcement officers can still arise from their official duties. The court concludes that the claims arise directly from the actions (or inactions) of the police department, affirming that the law enforcement exclusion applies, and consequently, Clarendon has no obligation to defend York in the Allen lawsuit. The policy purchased by York explicitly did not include Law Enforcement Liability Coverage, and the issue of misrepresentations in the application was not addressed in the appeal. York's cited case does not support their argument; rather, it distinguishes between law enforcement actions and other activities, affirming that the officers' alleged failures are indeed part of their law enforcement responsibilities.