govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-2_25-cv-01123-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE ) 
COMPANY, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
MATTHEW BURGER, 
 
 Defendant, 
and 
 
SHAWNA BURGER, BRIAN MACHEN 
and CHRISTINE MACHEN, 
 
 Necessary and Interested 
Parties/Defendants. 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 
 
No. 2:25-cv-1123 
 
District Judge Robert J. Colville 
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge 
 
 
ORDER OF COURT 
Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) filed 
by the Honorable Patricia Dodge in the above-captioned matter. Judge Dodge’s January 21, 2026 
Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 
Judgement (ECF No. 17). Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by February 
4, 2026. No objections were filed, and the Court considers this matter to be ripe for disposition. 
“The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders 
on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 
2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 
A district court may only modify or set aside those parts of the order on non- dispositive matters 
that it finds to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, 

2 
 
‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the 
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Pennsylvania, Dep’t of Envtl. 
Prot. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., No. 2:05 -cv-885, 2007 WL 2253554, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 
2007) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). “A magistrate judge’s 
order is contrary to law ‘when the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied the applicable 
law.’” Brandon v. Burkhart , No. 1:16- cv-177, 2020 WL 85494, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2020) 
(quoting Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006)). 
Following review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, “[t] he district 
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The United 
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent objections to the 
report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal 
issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.’” 
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) 
(quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)). 
Upon reasoned consideration of Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendation and 
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, and following review of all relevant docket entries, it is 
hereby ORDERED as follows: 
1. The Court agrees with the thorough and well -reasoned analysis set forth in Judge 
Dodge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge 
Dodge’s Report and Recommendation in its e ntirety as the opinion of the Court with 
respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. 
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgement is granted. 

3 
 
3. The following declaratory judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Travelers 
Personal Insurance Company and against Defendant Matthew Burger and Necessary 
and Interested Parties/Defendants Shawna Burger, Brian Machen , and Christine 
Machen: 
a. Travelers’s policy number 0FG009- 613691653-633-1 issued to Matthew 
Burger and Shawna Burger include liability exclusions (Exclusion 5 - “Bodily 
injury or property damage which is expected or intended by an insured even if 
the resulting bodily injury or property damag e, is a. Of a different kind a 
different kind, quality or degree than initially expected or intended; or b. 
Sustained by a different person, entity, real or personal property, than initially 
expected or intended.” ECF No. 18 at 3–4 (cleaned up). Exclusion 8 - “Bodily 
Injury or property damage arising out of any oral, written, electronic, digital or 
other means of communication, publication or physical action that: a. Is directed 
at or to an individual or group of individuals; and b. Includes content, mate rial 
or action that is or is perceived as: (1) Bullying, harassing, degrading, 
intimidating, threatening, tormenting or otherwise abusive; or (2) Causing or 
having caused emotional or psychological distress or fear of imminent harm or 
death.” Id. at 4 (cleaned up). Exclusion 16 - “Bodily Injury or property damage 
arising out of arising out of sexual molestation, corporal punishment or physical 
or mental abuse.” Id. (cleaned up)) that apply to preclude coverage for Matthew 
Burger for the claims a sserted in the lawsuit captioned Brian Machen and 
Christine Machen v. Matthew Burger in the Court of Common Pleas of 

4 
 
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, Case No. 25 C 101754 (the “Underlying 
Action”). 
b. The claims asserted against Matthew Burger in the Underlying Action arise out 
of intentional conduct and damages intended or expected by Matthew Burger 
and are not damages because of “bodily injury” caused by an “occurrence” to 
which the Travelers policy’s coverage applies. 
c. Travelers has no obligation to defend or indemnify Matthew Burger with 
respect to the claims asserted in the Underlying Action. 
d. Travelers may properly withdraw its defense of Matthew Burger in the 
Underlying Action. 
e. Travelers is not liable to pay or satisfy any claims, judgments, or awards in the 
Underlying Action. 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/Robert J. Colville_______ 
Robert J. Colville 
 United States District Judge 
 
DATED: June 10, 2026 
 
 
 
cc: 
 
All counsel of record 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight