Court of Cook County, Illinois in the Litigation Captioned Travel 100 Group, Inc. V.… v. St. Paul Fire

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-2755
* SUBCLASS 2 OF THE MASTER CLASS
OF PLAINTIFFS DEFINED AND CERTIFIED
IN THE JANUARY 30, 2006 AND JULY 28, 2006
ORDERS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK
COUNTY, ILLINOIS IN THE LITIGATION
CAPTIONED TRAVEL 100 GROUP, INC. V.
THE MELROSE HOTEL COMPANY, ET AL.,
DOCKET NO. 03 CH 12536,
Appellant
v.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY
* (Amended as per the Clerk's 10/10/06 Order)
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-03467)
District Judge: Hon. Berle M. Schiller
Argued: September 18, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and WEIS, Circuit Judges

-- 1 of 3 --

2
JUDGMENT ORDER
The insured, Melrose Hotel Company, filed an action in Pennsylvania state court
seeking a declaratory judgment that its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance
Company (the defendant appellee), has the responsibility to defend it from a class action
lawsuit filed by the Travel 100 Group, Inc. in an Illinois state court, alleging that
Melrose’s unsolicited fax advertisements violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and various state laws. In time, Melrose signed a settlement
agreement with Travel 100, providing for an entry of judgment against Melrose for 1.9
million dollars and assignment of Melrose’s coverage rights against St. Paul should it
refuse to pay $500,000 toward the settlement. When St. Paul refused, Melrose (on behalf
of Travel 100) filed this action for a declaratory judgment against St. Paul in a
Pennsylvania state court seeking a declaration that St. Paul must defend and indemnify
Melrose in the Travel 100 litigation. St. Paul removed this action to the District Court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and the Court granted summary judgment for St. Paul.
On appeal, Melrose argues that the District Court should have denied St. Paul’s
motion for summary judgment because the Travel 100 complaint triggered St. Paul’s duty
to defend under the policy; that the District Court misconstrued the Travel 100 complaint;
that the District Court’s construction of the policy was not supported by Pennsylvania
law, and that the District Court’s conclusion was contrary to the reasonable expectations
of the insured.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have reviewed the briefs filed by the parties, heard oral argument on this
matter, and conclude that, essentially for the reasons set forth by the District Court, its
judgment will be affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Dolores K. Sloviter
Circuit Judge
Dated: 25 September 2007

-- 3 of 3 --