Flomerfelt v. Cardiello

997 A.2d 991 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Flomerfelt (P) was a guest at a Saturday evening party hosted by Cardiello (D) while his parents, the owners of the home, were out of town. P was twenty-one years old. Cardiello, who was only twenty years old, admitted that he provided his guests with beer, that he was aware that a variety of drugs were being used at the event, and that during the party he saw P ingest cocaine. Although he denied providing P with drugs, he admitted that he took 'Ultracet,' a prescription medication and that empty individual-dose packets of that drug were found in the household trash after the party. P has little recollection of the party. Prior to arriving at D's home, she may have smoked marijuana, but cannot recall what else she might have ingested either before or during the party. P sued D alleging that D provided her with alcohol and drugs, including the prescription drug 'Ultracet,' which contains opiates. P became ill and unresponsive. D denies that he was aware of {'s plight prior to Sunday afternoon when finally awoke for the day. D then found P on the porch and were unable to rouse her. Eventually, D summoned rescue personnel, who took her to the emergency room. P contends that D delayed calling for help because he was afraid that the police would discover the illegal drugs in the house and because he did not want his parents to learn about the party he had hosted in their absence. P was treated for kidney and liver failure. A toxicology report identified alcohol, marijuana, opiates, and cocaine in P's system and her hospital discharge summary included an initial diagnosis of numerous conditions 'probably secondary to drug overdose.' P recovered from the effects of the acute liver and kidney conditions, but she contends that she suffers from permanent partial hearing loss. A battle of the experts ensued. D sought indemnification for P's claims to Pennsylvania General, his parents' homeowners' insurer. Pennsylvania General declined to defend or indemnify, pointing to the exclusion in the policy for claims 'arising out of the use, ... transfer or possession' of controlled dangerous substances. D filed a declaratory action against Pennsylvania General. The trial court granted D’s motion directing Pennsylvania to provide both a defense and indemnity. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of Pennsylvania General's motion, and its grant of relief in favor of D. D appealed.