PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURER’S ASSOCIATION, PENN STATE’S INSURER SEEKS TO DENY COVERAGE

Penn State’s legal battles continued Wednesday with the university’s primary general liability insurer filing a motion claiming coverage should be denied because the administration failed to disclose what it knew about former coach Jerry Sandusky’s behavior, according to legal documents.

The motion, filed in common pleas court by the Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Association, says Penn State did not provide it with information relevant to the insurable risk the association assumed. The association has already sued Penn State over the coverage of one of Sandusky’s victims’ claims against the university, filed in November 2011.

The association has insured Penn State under general liability policies since 1976.

“It would be unlawful and contradictory to public policy to require PMA to provide coverage to PSU under any policy issued to PSU after May 1998 with respect to PSU’s concealment of Sandusky’s sexually abusive conduct … and failure to take appropriate action to prevent Sandusky from molesting minors,” the motion read.

The motion comes days after former Penn State President Graham Spanier denied a role in a university cover-up of Sandusky’s actions. Spanier has not been criminally charged in the case. However, an investigation by ex-FBI chief Louis Freeh concluded that he helped university officials conceal allegations of sexual abuse against the former assistant football coach.

JERRY SANDUSKY FOUND GUILTY ON SEX ABUSE CHARGES

Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars after a jury convicted him on 45 of 48 counts related to sexual abuse of boys, ending a painful chapter for victims and the entire university.

But the ordeal is not over, as Sandusky’s defense team announced plans to appeal despite the mountain of convictions against his client.

“If you win on one of the appeal issues, everything probably falls,” attorney Joe Amendola said. “So all we have to do is convince an appellate court that one of the issues that we will raise is worthy of a reversal. … It doesn’t matter, it could be 100 counts, and it would still all come back if an appeal is granted.”

His co-counsel, Karl Rominger, cited questionable court decisions during the trial as grounds for appeal.

“The judge was very fair to us on many levels, but there were a lot of unique legal issues where he made rulings that could be overturned, not because they were, per se, wrong, but because the law in the area was so unclear,” Rominger said.

He said “substantial constitutional questions” surrounded the prosecution’s ability to use an accuser’s claims based on hearsay alone. “All the convictions could come back on that ruling alone,” Rominger said.

The attorney said Saturday that Sandusky has been placed on what is commonly known as suicide watch for his own safety. He is being held in protective custody, in an area separate from other inmates, as he awaits sentencing.