Pristine Pools LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co

── Pristine Pools LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-1679 ____________ PRISTINE POOLS, LLC; JONATHAN MEHALIC, Appellants v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2:24-cv-00269) Chief District Judge: Honorable Cathy Bissoon ____________ Argued on March 12, 2026 Before: Krause, Mascott, and Fisher, Circuit Judges. (Filed: June 2, 2026) Edward I. Levicoff ARGUED The Levicoff Law Firm 4 PPG Place, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appellant Thomas N. Brown Michael R. Carlson Ronald P. Schiller ARGUED Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller One Logan Square 18th & Cherry Streets, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee ____________ OPINION* ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. Pristine Pools, LLC, constructed an in-ground pool at an apartment complex. Unfortunately, the completed pool could not fulfill its primary purpose: holding water. The apartment complex sued Pristine Pools for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligence, claiming damages for the expense of replacing the leaky pool and additionally alleging that the pool caused damage to unidentified “surrounding property.”1 Pristine Pools tendered the claims to its commercial general liability (CGL) insurance providers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company. After Hartford denied it had a duty to defend Pristine Pools in the underlying * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 App. 177–78. 2 litigation, Pristine Pools sued Hartford. The District Court granted Hartford summary judgment. Pristine Pools appeals. We will affirm.2 To determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend under Pennsylvania law, we first examine the policy’s terms, “which are a manifestation of the ‘intent of the parties.’”3 Here, the policy covers a claim for property damage “caused by an ‘occurrence.’”4 An occurrence is “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.”5 This definition of occurrence, which is common in CGL policies, is known as the “Accident Definition.”6 Next, we look to “the factual allegations contained in the [underlying] complaint” to determine whether they trigger coverage under the terms of the policy.7 Policies that contain the Accident Definition of occurrence “provide coverage . . . if the insured work or product actively malfunctions, causing injury to an individual or damage to another’s 2 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (final decisions of district courts). We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Huber v. Simon’s Agency, Inc., 84 F.4th 132, 144 (3d Cir. 2023). Because jurisdiction in this case is based in diversity, we apply Pennsylvania law. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938). 3 Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. CPB Int’l,