Standard Fire Insurance Company v. CHRISTINA M. ARNOLD, EUGENE ARNOLD AND RICK NAUSS Christina M. Arnold and Eugene Arnold

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1467
___________
STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
CHRISTINA M. ARNOLD, EUGENE ARNOLD AND RICK NAUSS
Christina M. Arnold and Eugene Arnold, Appellants
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable William W. Caldwell.
(Civil Action No. 00-0568)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 8, 2002
Before: MANSMANN, RENDELL, and FUENTES Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: February 13, 2002)
________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
________________________

-- 1 of 2 --

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
We dispense with a full recitation of the facts since we write only for the parties
who are familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case. Briefly, on May 28, 1999,
Appellant, Christina Arnold was attacked and seriously injured by her employer's dog
while working in her employer's home. After receiving Workers' Compensation benefits,
she filed a claim against the employer, Rick Nauss, who was insured under a
homeowner's insurance policy issued by Appellee, Standard Fire Insurance Company. On
cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court determined that Standard did not
owe a duty to defend or indemnify Nauss, based on the Workers' Compensation
exclusion contained in the policy. We will affirm.
In ruling on the motions, the District Court determined that the Workers'
Compensation exclusion barred any recovery to Arnold. That exclusion bars coverage for
bodily injury to someone eligible to receive Workers' Compensation benefits voluntarily
provided or required to be provided by the insured. Arnold contends that she did not
receive compensation benefits from the insured, Rick Nauss, "in his capacity as a
homeowner." Rather, she states that she received benefits "via a workers' compensation
policy issued by Princeton Insurance Company to 'Richard D. Nauss; t/a All American
Pest Control'". Therefore, she claims, the Workers' Compensation exclusion does not
apply.
The District Court disagreed and noted that a sole proprietorship has no existence
separate and apart from its individual owner, and that it did not matter that Nauss traded
under a name different from his own. See District Court Opinion, page 8, citing, inter alia,
Glidden Company, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industry, 700 A.2d 555, 558 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 1997). Indeed, Appellant admits in her brief that if Nauss "and his business
are one and the same, then the exclusion would apply, and Standard would owe no duty to
defend and indemnify."
The District Court found that, in fact, Rick Nauss and his pest control company are
identical, and concluded that because Arnold received compensation benefits from the
insured, the Workers' Compensation exclusion applied, and Standard owed no duty to
defend or indemnify. We discern no error in this determination, and we will thus
AFFIRM the opinion of the District Court.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --