This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A dispute arose between P and its insured, D. P sought a declaratory judgment that it need not provide coverage for or defend two lawsuits brought against D for injuries suffered in a construction zone where D performed work. D filed several counterclaims seeking to recover expenses incurred as a result of one of the underlying lawsuits, as well as expenses incurred in the present declaratory judgment action. P filed its second motion for summary judgment claiming D suffered no damages. D raised the application of the collateral source rule to this case in response to P's second motion for summary judgment. D argued that 'the collateral source rule prohibits P from using D's other insurance recoveries to avoid liability for P's own misconduct.' P claimed that D was attempting to use the collateral source rule to recover a double indemnification, that the collateral source rule does not apply to contracts, and that the collateral source rule is a rule of evidence to be applied at trial, not on a motion for summary judgment. It was denied. The court went on to specifically rule that D could establish damages irrespective of the collateral source rule. The court first held that 'an insurer is not released from breach of contract damages simply because a third party covered the resultant loss.' The court further held that Pennsylvania law permits recovery of nominal damages where a plaintiff can prove a breach of contract but can show no damages flowing from the breach. P then filed a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative to join additional parties and take additional discovery.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.