Background
[J-65-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE : No. 61 EAP 2024 INSURANCE CO., LTD (U.S. BRANCH); : HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED : Petition for Certification of Question INSURANCE COMPANY : of State Law from the United States : Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit : at No. 23-1988 v. : : ARGUED: November 18, 2025 : RI SETTLEMENT TRUST; ACE : PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE : COMPANY; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL : INSURANCE COMPANY; PHILADELPHIA : INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; : CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE : CORPORATION : : : OPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: July 21, 2026 We granted a petition for certification1 filed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”) to answer the following questions: 1 Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 3341 permits the United States Supreme Court or any United States Court of Appeals to “file a petition for certification with the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court” to resolve a question of Pennsylvania law. This Court may accept certification “only where there are special and important reasons therefor,” including where “[t]he question of law is one of first impression and is of such substantial public importance as to require prompt and definitive resolution by the Supreme Court[.]” Pa.R.A.P. 3341(c)(1). 1.
Background This case arises out of four separate civil complaints in which the respective plaintiffs (“Underlying Plaintiffs”) alleged that, as minors, they were victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, including the Roosevelt Inn. Each plaintiff filed suit against, inter alia, UFVS Management Company, LLC, Roosevelt Motor Inn, Inc., and Roosevelt Inn, LLC (collectively, “Policyholders”) as the owners, [J-65-2025] – 2 operators, and managers of the Roosevelt Inn. The plaintiffs alleged that Policyholders, acting by and through their agents, were negligent in failing to stop sex trafficking from occurring at the Inn. At the time of the alleged sex trafficking, Policyholders maintained primary-layer commercial general liability insurance for the Roosevelt Inn through various insurers, including Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), and Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“Samsung”).2 Harleysville, Nationwide, and Samsung (collectively, “Insurers”) each initially defended Policyholders in the underlying lawsuits subject to reservations of rights. On October 10, 2018, Samsung instituted a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it had no legal duty to either defend or indemnify Policyholders in the underlying actions. Samsung argued, inter alia, that because the allegations against Policyholders, if true, would establish that they violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011 (“Human Trafficking Law”), it would be against public policy for Samsung to be forced to defend or indemnify Policyholders in the underlying actions.
The Court’s Holding
Conclusion For the reasons provided, we hold that neither an insurer’s duty to defend nor its duty to indemnify is abrogated on the basis of public policy when the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking. Given our answer to the first certified question, we do not address the remaining question and return the case to the Third Circuit. Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion. Justice Wecht files a concurring opinion in which Justice McCaffery joins. 15 See supra note 3. [J-65-2025] – 22 [J-65-2025] [MO: Donohue, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE : No. 61 EAP 2024 CO., LTD (U.S. BRANCH); HARLEYSVILLE : PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY : Petition for Certification of : Question of State Law from the : United States Court of Appeals for v. : the Third Circuit at No. 23-1988 : : ARGUED: November 18, 2025 RI SETTLEMENT TRUST; ACE PROPERTY : AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; : NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE : COMPANY; PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY : INSURANCE COMPANY; CAPITOL : SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION : : : APPEAL OF: RI SETTLEMENT TRUST : CONCURRING OPINION JUSTICE WECHT DECIDED: July 21, 2026 I join the Majority Opinion in full. The Third Circuit asks this Court to address whether there is “an overriding public policy” against sex trafficking under Minnesota Fire & Casualty Company v. Greenfield1 that abrogates an insurer’s contractual duty to defend its insureds—the owners, operators, and managers of the Roosevelt Inn. The Majority correctly answers this question in the negative.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- Conclusion For the reasons provided, we hold that neither an insurer’s duty to defend nor its duty to indemnify is abrogated on the basis of public policy when the insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from sex trafficking.
- Given our answer to the first certified question, we do not address the remaining question and return the case to the Third Circuit.
- Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion.
Why It Matters
Conclusion For the reasons provided, we hold that neither an insurer’s duty to defend nor its duty to indemnify… Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.