Keystone Filler & Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. American Mining Insurance Company on Appeal From the United States District Court…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1467
___________
KEYSTONE FILLER & MANUFACTURING CO., INC.
Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN MINING INSURANCE COMPANY
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-01947)
District Judge: The Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 16, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, ALITO, and McKEE, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 30, 2002)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Keystone Filler and Manufacturing Company, appeals from an
order of the District Court which denied Appellant partial summary judgment and granted
summary judgment in favor of American Mining Insurance Company. Appellant alleges
as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken verbatim from its brief. Because we
conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.
I.
The allegations of error asserted by Appellant are as follows:
1. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that as a matter of
law the property damage claim against the insured Appellant,
Keystone Filler and Manufacturing Company, was not caused by an
occurrence as defined in Appellee’s comprehensive general liability
policy?
2. Whether the District Court erred in concluding that as a matter of
law the insurer Appellee, American Mining Insurance Company, was
not estopped from denying coverage where the Appellee had
previously covered Appellant for a similar occurrence under a prior

-- 1 of 2 --

commercial general liability insurance policy identical to the policy
covering the second claim.
II.
The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties
and the court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The reasons why we write
an opinion of the court are threefold: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform
the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. We use a not-precedential opinion
in cases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the
opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual
circumstances when we affirm by not-precedential opinion and judgment, we briefly set
forth the reasons supporting the court’s decision. In this case, however, we have
concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is
indicated because of the very extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge McClure of
the District Court. Judge McClure’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its
order and refutes the Appellant’s allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly
unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given
by the District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that,
essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 16th day of
January, 2002, we will affirm.
III.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District
Court dated January 16, 2002.
_________________________
/s/ Richard L. Nygaard
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --