Pennsylvania Federal Court Holds Notice of Intent to File Third-Party Complaint Constitutes a “Claim”

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that a letter notifying the insured of the sender’s intent to file a joinder complaint, i.e., a third-party claim, against it constituted a Claim under the insured’s claims-made professional liability insurance policy. Landmark Am. Ins. Co. v. NurSelect LLC, 2025 WL 673632 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2025). The court further held that the letter, which was sent via email, was received on the date it was sent, (prior to the Policy Period), rather than when it was read (during the Policy Period).

The insured healthcare staffing agency provided staff to a nursing home. The staffing agreement between the insured and the nursing home contained an indemnification provision stating that each entity would be liable only for the negligence, acts, or omissions of its own agents and employees. A nursing home resident fell, and the resident’s estate later sued the nursing home. The nursing home’s investigation revealed that the resident was under the care of one of the insured’s employees at the time of her fall. Prior to the Policy Period, counsel for the nursing home sent the insured’s president a letter via email, notifying him that the nursing home intended to file a joinder complaint against the insured pursuant to the indemnification agreement. The insured’s president did not read the letter until several months later, during the Policy Period. The nursing home eventually filed its joinder complaint for indemnification against the insured during the Policy Period. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds that the Claim was first made when the notice of intent to sue letter was sent via email.  

The court granted the insurer’s summary judgment motion, concluding the Claim was first made outside of the Policy Period. The court determined that the letter constituted a “written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief” as required by the policy because a joinder complaint for indemnification is a demand that the joinder defendant pay damages that the joinder plaintiff would otherwise be required to pay. The court rejected the insured’s argument that the letter was not “received” until its president opened counsel’s email. Rather, the emailed letter was held to be received—and thus the Claim was made—when counsel sent it.