Has the Third Circuit correctly applied the law as set forth in SL Industries, and should this Court now establish a uniform standard of coverage evaluation which rejects the 'four corners' rule?

QUESTION PRESENTED Although the law of the State of New Jersey, which applies to this diversity action, removed from State Court on that basis, imposes a broad duty on an insurer to defend a claim against its insured, the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously determined that coverage was preclude by a “prior known acts” exclusion in the insurance policy. In reaching that conclusion, both courts applied the so-called “four corners” rule, evaluating coverage only based on the disputed allegations of the Complaint, without reference to their truth or accuracy. This is contrary to the law of New Jersey, as articulated in SL Indus. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 188, 198 (1992), a State Supreme Court case which rejected the “four corners” rule and has been cited with approval by the Third Circuit. Courts throughout the country are split on this very issue. Therefore, the question presented is: Has the Third Circuit correctly applied the law as set forth in SZ Industries, and should this Court now establish a uniform standard of coverage evaluation which rejects the “four corners” rule? ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 18-3073 Montville Township Board of Education, Appellant, v. Zurich American Insurance Company. Decision Date: July 26, 2019 United States District Court for the District of New Jersey No. 2:16-cv-4466-KM-MAH Montville Township Board of Education, Plaintiff, v. Zurich American Insurance Co., Defendant. Decision Date: August 21, 2018 RELATED CASE Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County Docket No. MID-L-6011-12 Child M, a minor by her g/a/I/ R.M. and R.M. and Z.P., Individually, Plaintiffs v. Jason Fennes, Cedar Hill Prep School, William Mason Elementary School, Montville Township Public Schools, Montville Township Board of Education, and John Doe(s) #1-5, 5-10, 11-15 (inclusive, fictitiously named defendants), ABC Corps #1-5, 5-10, 11-15 (inclusive, fictitiously named defendants), jointly and severally, Defendants. Decision Date: Not applicable iii RULE 14.1(B)(Gii) STATEMENT There is a similar matter, arising from a separate insurance claim, based on a different Complaint, in which the same underlying issue coverage issue is raised. That matter, pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, is Montville Township Board of Education v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Docket No. MRS-L-000430-19.