Case Summaries Hon. Maureen E. Lally-Green
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Superior Court, Western District
Case Summaries
Wisniski v. Brown & Brown Ins. Co. of Pa, 852 A.2d 1206 (Pa.Super. 2004)
Issue: Plaintiffs/ Appellants appealed from the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants/ Appellee, Brown & Brown Insurance Co. of Pa. Inc., Donald Blood and Will Rineer, (collectively known as the ABrown Agency). Defendants/ Appellees EMC Insurance Companies and Scott W. Ahlstrom appealed a different part of the same order, denying their motion for summary judgment.
Decision of Court: The Court reversed and remanded Appellant/Plaintiffs' appeal and quashed EMC's appeal. It held that the case did not present a question of breach of fiduciary duty nor did it depend on whether a special or confidential relationship existed between the parties. Instead, it depended on whether or not the Brown Agency violated its ordinary duty of professional care, a standard negligence claim, and thereby found that a genuine issue material fact existed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
In re: W.M; W.R.; W.R.; W.D.; and W.D., Minors 842 A.2d 425 (Pa. Super.2003)
Issue: Appellant appealed from the orders adjudicating five of her six children dependent after the court determined that Appellant had permitted the children's father to continue to have contact with them, following discovery that he sexually abused Appellant's sixth child.
Decision of Court: The Court found that the evidence indicated that Appellant chose and will continue to choose the father's presence in her home over the safety of her children. Under the Juvenile Act, specifically the 1998 amendments, it found no abuse of discretion or error of the law in the trial court's finding of dependency.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
In Re: Adoption of T.B.B. 835 A.2d 387 (Pa.Super. 2003)
Issue: Appellant, mother, challenged the order of the Orphans' Court of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, terminating parental rights to her minor sons.
Decision of Court: Affirmed. The Court held that the record reflects sufficient evidence to support the decree of the termination court and the court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the needs and welfare of the boys. Thus, it affirmed the court's termination of Appellant's parental rights.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Treasure Lake Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. V. Meyer, 832 A.2d 477 (Pa.Super. 2003)
Issue: Appellants, Meyers, appealed the trial court order finding in favor of the Association in its claim seeking payment of unpaid maintenance fees, and dismissing their appeal from the arbitration award.
Decision of Court: The Court held that all of Appellants' issues were waived for failure to file post-trial motions as well as issues not supported by citation to appropriate legal authority. In the alternative, the Court found issues Appellant raised that were not waived, were meritless. The Court affirmed.
Neuhard v. Travelers Ins. Co., 831 A.2d 602 (Pa.Super 2003)
Issue: Travelers Insurance Company appealed from the order compelling arbitration of the claims of Appellee, Neuhard, for underinsured motorist benefits. Appellants presented the sole issue of whether the trial court erred by ordering that Appellee's underinsured motorist claim be submitted to arbitration despite the absence of an agreement to arbitrate such claims under applicable insurance policy.
Decision of Court: The Court found that the trial court erred in applying the Declaratory Opinion and Order retroactively and also, that Appellant waived any constitutional claims for failure to present the issue to the trial court to consider. Thus, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Wolanin v. Hashagen, 829 A.2d 331 (Pa. Super 2003)
Issue: Relative to the underlying matter concerning the ownership and use of a pond, Appellants argued that (1) there was not evidence that Appellants violated a previous order to discontinue use of the pond; (2) the contempt order failed to address Appellants' defense that Appellees caused the pond to encroach on Appellants' own and; (3) the contempt order required clarification.
Decision of Court: Since the trial court did not issue findings of fact, appellate review of Appellants' central issue was impeded. The Court remanded to the trial court to issue findings of fact consistent with the opinion and to submit such findings to the Court within 30 days.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Sternlicht v. Sternlicht 822 A.2d 732 (Pa.Super 2003)
Issue: Relative to a Petition requesting that Father produce records of all transactions relating to a custodial account Father established for daughter under the Pennsylvania Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, Appellant, mother, appealed from the order denying Mother's petition for Accounting and for Removal of Custodian and denying Mother counsel fees.
Decision of Court: The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part thereby remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion. The Court recognized that a transfer to a minor within the PUTMA is irrevocable and also, concluded that evidence showing the assets were deposited into a PUTMA account conclusively established that a transfer within the meaning of the Act was made.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Maddas v. Dehaas, 816 A.2d 234 (Pa. Super 2003)
Issue: In connection with a trial court order concerning the child support award, the mother filed an appeal raising two issues, including (1) whether the trial court erred in retroactively modifying the child support order and (2) whether the Pa.R.C.P. is fair relating to the treatment of Social Security Disability payments on behalf of a child.
Decision of Court: The Court held that the trial court erred by order that the minor's payments be included in the modification of Father's arrears from the date Mother began receiving social security disability until the date the rule became effective. The Court affirmed the trial court's order directing modification of Father's arrears from the date Mother's disability payments began through the period before the new rule became effective.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Freidenbloom v. Weyant 814 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Super 2003)
Issue: Appellant presented two issues for review concerning (1) whether the trial court's order directing plaintiff to pay defendant's counsel fees was not supported by the record, was contrary to the law and/or constituted an abuse of discretion under the facts of the case and (2) whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction or authority to enter an award of counsel fees because of the defendant's untimely filing of her petition for counsel fees.
Decision: The Court held that because the fee petition was filed beyond the 30-day period in which the trial court lacked any authority to act on the late petition for counsel fees. Thus, it was constrained to vacate the order.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Equitable Gas Co. v. Wade 812 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super 2002)
Issue: Relative to Appellant's, a public utility supplying gas, claim seeking judgment against Appellee, a customer, for unpaid gas bills, plus pre-judgment interest plus post-judgment interest, Appellant raised presented the issue of whether it holds a lawful tariff authorizing a late charge of up to 18% per year until Appellee's gas bill has been paid in full and that the 18% rate should apply to the judgment amount rather than the 6% statutory rate of post-judgment interest.
Decision of Court: The Court found that because the judgment extinguished any claims with respect to the overdue bill, and because the only legal rate of interest on a judgment is set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A §8101, it concluded that the trial court did not err in dismissing Appellant's claim for 18% interest after the judgment was entered. Thus, the Court affirmed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Debbs v. Chrysler Corp. 810 A.2d 137 (Pa. Super. 2002)
Issue: Arising from allegations of negligence and strict liability for the defective activation of the air bag that caused permanent scarring and constituted a breach of the warranties of merchantability and fitness, both parties sought review of the jury award for compensatory damages to each class member of the class action, plus punitive damages, and denial of all post-verdict motions, except for a motion for attorneys fees.
Decision of Court: The Court found that (1) the trial court abused its discretion because it misapplied the law when it permitted Debbs to amend his individual complaint with class action allegations and new parties; (2) the court's failure to issue a class certification opinion violated Rule 1710(a); (3) the class claims for fraud and violations of UTPCPL should have been dismissed for lack of commonality and (4) the class claims should have been dismissed because they were not representative of the rest of the class claims. Thus, the Court vacated the judgment in favor of the class because the case should not have proceeded to trial as a class action. The Court ordered the trial court to decertify the class and provide adequate notice of the ruling and the running of the statute of limitations to the class members, so as not to prejudice any action those individuals wanted to pursue.
A.B. Hannington v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania 809 A.2d 406 (Pa. Super 2002)
Issue: Appellant presented two issues including (1) where an attorney agreed to the settlement of a pending lawsuit without the express authority of his client, whether the client is still bound by the settlement on the basis of attorney's apparent authority and (2) was a factual dispute presented to the lower court on the attorney's authority to agree to a settlement so as to require the lower court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Decision of Court: The Court found that since the University had a reasonable belief that Appellant had authorized the settlement, the doctrine of apparent authority was applicable to enforce the settlement agreement in the case, thereby rendering Appellant's claim meritless. Further, since the trial court properly enforced the settlement agreement, under the apparent authority doctrine, an evidentiary hearing on the factual question was unnecessary.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Everrett Cash Mut. Ins. Co. v. T.H.E. Ins. Co., 804 A.2d 31 (Pa. Super 2002)
Issue: Appellant, Everrett Cash Mutual Insurance Company, appealed from the order granting summary judgment to Appellee, T.H.E. Insurance Company. Relative to a zebra escape and attack, Appellant initially filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that T.H.E. had the primary duty to defend and indemnify Martin and Martin Enterprise, under a commercial general liability insurance policy. Appellant presented the question of whether the issues were waived on appeal for failure to file a Concise Statement.
Decision of Court: The Court affirmed, holding that Appellants' issues were waived on appeal for failure to file a Concise Statement.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Professional Transp. and Logistics, Inc., 803 A.2d 776, (Pa. Super. 2002)
Issue: The sole issue presented concerned whether the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred by not holding that all claims filed in the Complaint be submitted to compulsory arbitration as required in accordance with the agreement between the parties or by not dismissing the entire action.
Decision: The Court found that because the claim arises from
the contract, it was encompassed by the arbitration agreement. Thus, it
found that the Court abused its discretion in not applying this doctrine to the
case at bar and reversed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Heintz 804 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super 2002)
Issue: Appellant presented the questions of (1) whether the trial court erred when it construed the petition solely as a petition to vacate and further erred when it held that it had no power to vacate the award; (2) whether the arbitration panel erred as a matter of law when it determined that an Important Notice under §1791 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law was indispensible to a knowing and voluntary reduction of benefits under §1734; (3) assuming that Appellant was permitted to show a knowing and voluntary reduction under §1734 through the totality of circumstances, whether the Appellant carried the burden of proof under the case's facts; (3) whether there was an available legal remedy for an insurer's failure to ensure a knowing and voluntary reduction of the UM/UIM benefits under §1734 and §1791; and (5) assuming the only enforceable requirement of §1734 was the request for reduction be in writing, whether Appellant complied with §1734.
Decision of Court: The Court found that (1) under 42 Pa.C.S.A. 7302(d)(2), the trial court had the power to correct or modify the arbitration award; (2) to the extent that the §1734 contained a requirement that insureds elect reduced UIM reduction benefits in a knowing and voluntary manner, the requirement can only be satisfied by complying with §1791, assuming the writing requirement of §1734 has been met; (3) there was no express remedy under MVFRL for a violation of §1791; and (4) absent an express remedy, the Court was constrained to conclude that the arbitration panel erred as a matter of law by reforming the insured's UIM coverage. Finding that the trial court affirmed the legally erroneous award, it was constrained to vacate the judgment. The Court remanded for the trial court to enter a judgment reflecting the fact that the Heintzes were entitled to $150,000.00 in UIM benefits. Thus, it vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Moses Taylor Hosp. v. White 799 A2d 802 (Pa.Super. 2002)
Issue: Appellant, the personal representative of debtor's estate, sought review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County granting Appellee's Petition for Supplementary Relief in Aid of Execution and directing that all shares of the stock be delivered to Appellee. Appellee, Moses Taylor Hospital, had filed garnishment against corporation to satisfy debt owed for medical services rendered before decedent's death.
Decision of Court: The Court found that Appellant waived all issues on appeal and even if the issues were presented, they were supported by the record and involved no error of law or abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
In re: Estate of Borkowski 794 A.2d 388 (Pa.Super. 2002)
Issue: Appellant presented one issue following the court's issue of a decree nisi ordering Appellants to amend the accounting to provide for Mr. Utz's statutory rights, asking whether the lower court in its conclusion that the surviving spouse did not waive his right to claim against the will of his deceased spouse under 20 Pa.C.S.A. §2507(3) and the right to claim the family exemption under 20 Pa.C.S.A. §3121 because of executing the Prenuptial Agreement with the decedent.
Decision of Court: The Court found that Appellants had not made a final accounting and the trial court did not confirm a final accounting, so the estate was still under administration. Since the order directing Appellants to amend the accounting was not final as it did not dispose of all claims and all parties, the Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Ridgeway ex rel. Estate of Ridgeway v. U.S. Life Credit Life Ins. Co., 793 A.2d 972 (Pa.Super. 2002)
Issue: Appellant, Ridgeway, who secured a judgment in a bad faith action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. '8371 against U.S. Life, was able to maintain a second bad faith action against U.S. Life for failure to pay that judgment.
Decision: The Court held that the scope of Section 8371 did not include post-settlement conduct by an insurer, so Appellant could not put forth a bad faith claim. The Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter an order sustaining Appellee's preliminary objections and dismissing Ridgeway's complaint with prejudice.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Belser v. Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co., 791 A.2d 1216 (Pa.Super. 2002)
Issue: In the underlying action, the estate alleged that a Belser-Hale employee provided negligent directions to Hervatin, a dump truck operator, who died after his truck came into contact with power lines on a construction site. Relative to an insurer's duty to defend and indemnify, Appellant presented the issue of whether Belser-Hale was an insured of Rockwood because the Belser-Hale employee directed Rockwood's insured, Hervatin, as Hervatin was operating the dump truck that came into contact with the power lines.
Decision of Court: Finding that Belser-Hale was not a Auser of the truck, the Court stated that Belser-Hale was not an insured under the policy and thus, Rockwood had no duty to defend or indemnify. It also found that the trial court did not commit an error of law by sustaining Rockwood's preliminary objections nor by dismissing Appellants' declaratory judgment action. Thus, the Court affirmed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Cerankowski v. State Farm Mut.Auto.Ins. Co., 783 A.2d 343 (Pa.Super. 2001)
Issue: Arising issues connected with personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, Appellant, State Farm Insurance Company, appealed from the trial court order granting the petition of Appellee to vacate award of arbitrators. Appellant presented the issue of whether the trial court erred in vacating the arbitration award absent an appropriate record, public policy reasons, and case law, since the UIM carrier never consented to settlement of the products liability claim.
Decision of Court: The Court held the trial court did not commit an error of law in placing upon the insurer the burden of coming forward and proving that the settlement prejudiced its interests in order to deny UIM coverage. Instead, the applicable rule of law directed that an insurer must demonstrate prejudice before it can invoke a consent to settle clause to prevent payment of UIM coverage to an insured that has paid for that insurance. The Court affirmed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
In re: Estate of Coombs 784 A.2d 150 (Pa.Super. 2001)
Issue: Relative to environmental hazard claims against the property the executor renounced, Appellant sought to overrule the trial court's finding that executor was permitted to renounce and abandon the property.
Decision of Court: The Court affirmed, holding that executor was permitted to abandon the property at issue.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Div. 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa.Super 2001)
Issue: In connection with a products liability against a manufacturer alleging that defects in immersion heater used to warm the baptismal pool caused a fire that damaged the church, Appellant sought review of the jury award to the Church and judgment entered on the verdict. Appellant presented three issues including (1) whether the lower court committed reversible error warranting a new trial when it failed to properly instruct the jury that the product was defective if and only if at the time it left manufacturer's control it was unsafe for its intended use rather than just Aunsafe for use; (2) whether the lower court committed reversible error and/ or abused its discretion warranting JNOV or a new trial when it failed to grant Emerson's request for a spoliation inference jury instruction and/or failed to impose any sanction upon Plaintiff as a consequence of Plaintiff's intentional destruction of critical fire scene evidence, where that destruction prevented Emerson identifying other potential causes of the fire, and as a result, substantially prejudiced Emerson's ability to prepare a defense; (3) whether the lower court abused its discretion or erred in permitting Plaintiff to introduce evidence of other fires from similar heaters so as to suggest that similar product had been previously adjudicated a fire hazard.
Decision of Court: The Court held that the evidence did not support an instruction on intended use, so the trial court did not err in failing to provide such instructions. The Court also found that there was no abuse of discretion for not granting a spoliation inference absent evidence that there was any prejudice nor was there for not issuing any sanctions. Further to the extent that evidence or testimony offered relative to other fires caused by defective heaters caused prejudice, the Court found that the trial court corrected it in its curative instructions. Thus, the Court affirmed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Bonfilglio v. Bonfiglio 781 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2001)
Issue: Arising from a divorce judgment entered in a North Carolina court, Appellant sought review of whether the lower court abused its discretion and committed an error of law when it did not bar the enforcement of foreign judgments for equitable distribution or alimony for claims initiated or enforced beyond the four year statute of limitations.
Decision of Court: The Court held that the four year statute of limitations that applied to initiation of claims did not apply to the registration and enforcement of equitable distribution actions and was thus, inapplicable to the North Carolina judgment at issue.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Hall v. Owens Corning Fiberglass Corp. 779 A.2d 1167 (Pa.Super. 2001)
Issue: Appealing from the judgment entered in favor of Appellee, Hall, Executrix of the Estate, Appellant raised the issue of whether the defendant was entitled to judgment nonwithstanding the verdict whether Appellant claimed plaintiff did not offer admissible evidence to carry her burden of proving exposure of the decedent to the defendant's product and in the alternative, whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial where the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence, which was the only evidence offered by Plaintiff to carry her burden of proving exposure to defendant's product.
Decision of Court: The Court found that since Appellee failed to meet her burden under Rule 4020 for the fuse of deposition testimony at trial, the court erred in permitting its use. Thus, the Court reversed and remanded for a new Phase II trial on the issue of liability.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Council, Inc. v. Gentile 776 A.2d 276 (Pa.Super. 2001)
Issue: In a case of first impression, the Court was asked whether the trial court erred in holding that Appellant violated the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act by requiring a spousal signature on a loan guarantee.
Decision of Court: The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, rather than determine in the absence of clear evidence whether or not they were joint applicants.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Property & Cas. Ins. Guar.Ass'n 777 A.2d 84 (Pa.Super. 2001)
Issue: Arising from wrongful death and survival claims based on negligence or gross negligence in an airplane accident or in the alternative workers' compensation claims, the Court was presented with the question of how to interpret §991.1803(b)(1)(i)(B) of the Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association Act based on Appellants', Keystone Aerial Surveys, Inc, et al appeal from the grant of summary judgment to PIGA. Specifically, the Court framed the question as who was the claimant under the Act.
Decision of Court: The Court stated that focus of the inquiry should be on the scope of the policy, rather than on the cause of action or the state in which the action is asserted, nor whether the estate of decedent or his personal representative was a claimant under Pennsylvania law. Rather, the Court stated that the issue was not squarely presented in the instant case because the plaintiffs did not file in Pennsylvania and neither the estate of decedent nor his personal representatives participated in the action. The Court remanded for further proceedings, thereby directing the trial court to (1) examine the claims in light of the policy at issue and the principles set forth in the opinion; (2) determine the number of claimants and covered claims; and (3) issue an appropriate declaratory judgment indicating the maximum amount payable by PIGA in light of that analysis.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Schindler v. Sofamor, Inc. ,774 A.2d 765 (Pa.Super. 2001)
Issue: In a products liability/design defect case concerning a back rod inserted into the back for spinal support, Appellants argued that the trial court misapplied the standard for awarding JNOV because the trial court did not construe all factual inferences in favor of Appellants, namely that they presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could and did find the rod was unfit for its intended purpose. Appellants argued that the trial court erred by disregarding this evidence and concluded as a matter of law that the back rod was fit for its intended purpose because the rod stayed in place for over one year, even though the fusion did not take place.
Decision of Court: The Court found that based on the trial court's appropriately limited statement of the CD rod's purpose and the undisputed fact that the CD Rod did stabilize the spine for over a year, there was not error in the court's conclusion that the product was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. Thus, the Court held that the JNOV was appropriate and affirmed the order.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
J.H. ex rel. Hoffman v. Pellak 764 A.2d 64 (Pa.Super. 2000)
Issue: After minor child, aged 11, was struck in the head by a pellet, discharged from an air pistol in the possession of J.P., a twelve-year-old boy, the parents of the injured child instituted an action against the 12 year old boys parents seeking damages out of the incident based on negligence. Following the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery Appellants presented two issues, including (1) whether the lower court erred in ruling that as a mater of law, Appellee could have not have a duty to exercise reasonable care over her minor son while he was in his father's physical custody and (2) whether a genuine issue of material fact existed about whether Defendant Appellee had the knowledge of the necessity to control her child and the ability and opportunity to act accordingly.
Decision of Court: The Court stated that the duty to exercise reasonable care to control a child must be limited and arises when a parent at the relevant time knows or should know of the need to exercise parental control and has the ability and opportunity to do so, regardless of whether or not there is shared legal custody. Thus, it was not intended to be the basis for imputing negligence to a parent who did not know of the need to exercise control and did not have the ability or opportunity to do so. The Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Mother.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Piso v. Piso 761 A.2d 1215 (Pa.Super. 2000)
Issue: Appellant, Father, appealed from the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County order holding that it had not jurisdiction to order the custodial parent, the mother, to execute a waiver of the right to claim a child as a dependent for tax purposes. Thus, the issue presented was whether the trial court has jurisdiction to order a custodial parent to execute a written waiver of his or her right to claim a child as a dependency exemption for federal income tax purposes, thus allowing the non-custodial parent to claim the exemption.
Decision of Court: The Court held that based on statutory language, legislative history, and legislative intent, other state court decisions, and Pennsylvania's Divorce Code, it concluded that state courts have the power to allocate the dependency exemption and can order such allocations in certain cases or impose other conditions as it deems appropriate. Since the non-custodial parent who is paying child support cannot effectively claim the exemption without the executed waiver, the court must order the execution to give full effect to the order respecting the allocation. Thus, the Court reversed, remanded and directed the trial court to determine whether or not it was appropriate to allocate the exemption the father sought.
Griesser v. National R.R.Passenger Corp. 761 A.2d 606 (Pa.Super. 1999)
Issue: The Court was presented with a matter of first impression regarding the interplay of the collateral source rule and the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) based on Appellant's argument that the trial court erred by introducing evidence barred by the collateral source rule.
Decision of Court: The Court agreed with Appellant's argument that evidence was improperly entered as barred by the collateral source rule and thus, vacated the judgment. The Court held that the trial court committed an error of law when it allowed Amtrak to present evidence of collateral early retirement benefits. Since there was a possibility that the jury may have used the evidence to mitigate Appellant's damages or reduce Amtrak's liability, the Court remanded for a new trial on liability and damages. The Court vacated and remanded.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Thomas v. West Bend Co. 760 A.2d 1174 (Pa.Super. 2000)
Issue: Appellant, Thomas, appealed from the order entered granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee, West Bend. Relative to injuries suffered after plugging in a popcorn popper, the issue presented was whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding an expert opinion inadmissible under the Frye test.
Decision: The Court concluded that the trial court did not err in excluding a medical expert opinion. The Court found that in the absence of admissible expert testimony connecting the accident to Appellant's heart condition, Appellant could not proceed with the claim against West Bend. Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to West Bend.
In re: Estate of Moyer 758 A.2d 206 (Pa.Super.2000)
Issue: After being denied a petition for forfeiture, Appellant appealed from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County seeking to be the beneficiary of the death benefits of her deceased grandson whom she had been raising.
Decision: The Court found that the record supported a conclusion that the mother was aware of her duty as she was under court order to perform and failed to do so, regardless. Thus, as the record shows that she made no attempt to meet her court ordered duty to support, Appellant, grandmother, demonstrated that forfeiture was appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court order.
Lewis v. Erie Ins. Exchange 753 A.3d 839 (Pa.Super. 2000)
Issue: Appellant, Erie Insurance Exchange appealed from an order in the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Appellees, Lewis. Appellant presented the issue of whether the trial court erred in holding that a selection by Lewis of reduced UM/UIM coverages was void and unenforceable because the reduction/waiver forms provided by Erie violated the technical requirements of MVFRL §1731 and ordering reformation of the policy to provide UM/UIM coverage equal to the policy's bodily injury liability coverage, with the stacking option applicable. The Court addressed whether policies issued under §1734 must comply with the requirements of §1731 and if an insurer fails to do so, whether the MVFRL provides for a remedy of contract reformation to the bodily injury liability benefits.
Decision of Court: The Court reversed and remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings. The Court found that since there is no express
legislative intent to incorporate the §1731 requirements into §1734, the Court
would not add provisions the legislature omitted. Therefore, the Court
found that the separate sheet requirement of §1731 was not a requirement of §1734,
so Erie's claim had merit. Additionally, the explicit language of §1734
relative to a writing requirement was not disputed as unmet. Thus, it
concluded that absent an explicit statutory remedy, the Court did not refuse to
create one by judicial interpretation.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Donahue v. Federal Exp. Corp. 753 A.2d 238 (Pa.Super. 2000)
Issue: In a wrongful discharge action of an employee, the Court was presented with four issues on appeal, including (1) whether FedEx breached its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by terminating Appellee; (2) whether the doctrine of necessary implication dictated that parties in an employment relationship do and perform things necessary to carry out the employment relationship; (3) whether the Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure created a promise to only dismiss for cause; and (4) whether there was specific intent to harm Appellant.
Decision of Court: The Court held that Appellant could not as a matter
of law maintain an action for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing, insofar as the underlying claim was for termination of an at-will
employment relationship. The Court affirmed the trial court's
order.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Rosselli v. Rosselli 750 A.2d 355 (Pa.Super.2000)
Issue: Appellant sought review of the trial court's order and opinion determining equitable distribution of marital assets, including determination of what items were marital assets, established valuations dates, placed values on the family businesses, and determined a purchase scheme.
Decision of Court: The Court quashed the appeal from an order for equitable distribution of marital assets for failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, coupled with attempts to misdirect the Court to review documents that are not of record. In turn, the Court quashed the appeal, concluded that sanctions were necessary, and granted the wife's motion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. §2188.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
In re: Estate of Schultheis 747 A.2d 918 (Pa.Super. 2000)
Issue: Appellants, residuary beneficiaries of decedent's estate, argued that the additional shares discovered by executrix belonged in the residuary estate in accordance with the express and unambiguous intent of the will. Appellants sought review of the Orphans' Court affirming the executrix's disposition of additional shares and to impose a surcharge on her for her disposition of the assets.
Decision: The Court affirmed the trial court's order finding that the disposition of the additional shares was proper and the Orphans' Court did not err when it refused to impose a surcharge.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Miller v. Miller 744 A.2d 778 (Pa. Super. 1999)
Issue: In connection with a divorce action and order pertaining to equitable distribution, alimony, and counsel fees, Appellant sought review of whether the trial court erred in (1) dividing the marital property 60% to wife and 40% to Appellants; (2) awarding alimony to the wife in the amount of $1,400 for 30 months; (3) assessing wife with an earning capacity of $2,000 per month gross; and (4) ordering Appellant to pay $5,000 in counsel fees to wife.
Decision: The Court held that under the Divorce Code, the trial court had the authority to allocate the exemption and to direct the custodial waiver. Thus, the Court remanded for further proceedings in order for the trial court to determine, in its discretion, whether or not it was appropriate to allocate the exemption Appellant sought given the overall scheme of APL and child support in the case. The Court refused to overturn the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions relative to marital misconduct. Similarly, the Court found that because the court's conclusions about earning capacity and counsel fees were reasonable and supported by evidence in the records, it rejected Appellant's argument that the trial court erred. The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Hubert v. Greenwald 743A. 2d 977 (Pa.Super. 1999)
Issue: In a slip and fall action, Appellant, Hubert, appealed from the order dismissing her complaint with prejudice for failure to join an indispensable party within the statute of limitations, claiming that the party was not indispensable and in the alternative, if found to be an indispensable party, then the statute of limitations should be tolled to join said party as an additional defendant.
Decision of Court: The Court upheld the trial court's decision finding
that appellee, as purchaser of the tavern in full possession and control of the
property, was an indispensable party and that Appellant should not be precluded
for asserting a statute of limitations defense, since there was not evidence of
fraud or concealment. Thus, the Court affirmed.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
DeSantis v. Frick Co., 745 A.2d 624 (Pa. Super. 1999)
Issue: Appellant sought review of two issues relative to the trial court's granting of summary judgment, including (1) whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a post-sale duty to warn of safety hazards in the continued use of the product and technological improvements that minimize such hazards and (2) assuming that Pennsylvania law imposes a post-sale duty to warn alleged by Appellant whether Pennsylvania's statute of repose applied and barred her claim.
Decision of Court: The Court found that it is for a jury to determine whether the seller accompanied his product with sufficient instructions and warnings so as to make his product safe, so Appellant's second issue was unnecessary to address. Thus, the Court affirmed finding that summary judgment was appropriate because the Commonwealth recognized no post-sale duty to warn and thus, Appellant's claim could not be barred by a statute of repose.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Simmons v. Luallen, 738A.2d 1018 (Pa. Super. 1999)
Issue: Appellant, Simmons, pro se appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County that denied her Petition to Open and/or Strike Judgment and her Petition to File Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc. The trial court found that Appellant avoided service by mail for failing to respond to the notices given by the post office regarding certified mail.
Decision of Court: The Court held that upon review of the record, Appellant failed to show that a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse existed for the delay in her filing her complaint.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Campanaro v. Pennsylvania Elec. Co., 738 A.2d 472 (Pa.Super. 1999)
Issue: Appellants initiated a class action lawsuit against against Appellee, Penelec, after exhausting all administrative remedies . Appealing the trial court's grant of summary judgment entered in Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Appellants raised the question of whether the trial court erred in dismissing claims for sex discrimination based upon the theory of disparate treatment, in selecting its summary judgment standards, and dismissing claims for sex discrimination based upon the theory of disparate impact.
Decision of Court: The Court held that Appellants failed to set forth a prima facie case of gender discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; and even if they had, they failed to offer any evidence to establish that Penelec's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were false or pretextual. Even though Appellants did not present any evidence that would demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to the falsity of Penelec's reasons as to the adverse employment decision or as to the fact that Penelec's reasons were pretextual, it held that the summary judgment standard was consistent with Pennsylvania's law.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Imler v. Hollidaysburg American Legion Ambulance Service 731 A.2d 169 (Pa.Super 1999)
Issue: After the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment against Appellant, Appellant asked whether there are any issues of material fact relative to Appellant's work-related accident and alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and American Disabilities Act for inability to lift 100 pounds due to his herniated disc.
Decision of Court: The Court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment of Appellee because Appellant did not adduce sufficient evidence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the elements of his prima facie case under either the PHRA or ADA.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
In re Estate of Hall 731 A.2d 617 (Pa.Super.1999)
Issue: Appellant raised three issues including 1) whether a letter from a corporation promising to repurchase stock it just sold on terms set forth in the letter is enforceable; 2) whether a corporate bylaw that requires the estate of a deceased stockholder to sell its stock to the corporation for book value is enforceable; and 3) whether the filing of a counterclaim demanding payment of all past due installments under a note requires the repayment of any installments which may have been withheld at the payee's request.
Decision of Court: The Court found that 1) ample evidence existed on behalf of both parties that the parties did not intend the letter to serve as a binding agreement which created a conflict to be resolved by the fact finder; 2) since the fact finder had sufficient evidence to conclude that Hall did not believe the letter was an agreement, so equitable estoppel arguments were inapplicable and 3) the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court, which served as fact finder in the situation erred, so the claim was meritless. Thus, it affirmed the trial court's order.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
First Philson Bank, N.A. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 727 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 1999)
Issue: After instituting an action against Appellees claiming coverage alleging that Hartfort refused to make payment under a fidelity bond and claiming coverage for alleged misconduct and fraudulent acts by the Bank's former employee, Keep, First Philson Bank appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County. Appellants asked whether summary judgment was improper because 1) the check-kiting loss was not a Aloan loss within the meaning of a financial institution bond; 2) sufficient evidence as to employee, Keep's, receipt of the financial benefit raised a genuine issue of material fact; 3) it was unconscionable and contrary to the parties' intentions under the financial institution bond to require Appellants to prove actual receipt of a financial benefit under the case's facts and 4) its bad faith claims were appropriate.
Decision of Court: Affirmed. The Court held that the trial court did not err in concluding that the Bank's losses occurred as result of the loan nor in concluding that the Bank failed to demonstrate that Keep received a financial benefit. The Court declined to address whether the benefit requirement was unconscionable in light of the loss, making it unenforceable, as the record did not support a finding of any financial benefit. Also, the Court concluded that the Bank's bad faith claims did not have merit.
Position of Judge: Authored.
Emery v. Leavesly McCollum 725 A.2d 807(Pa. Super.1999)
Issue: Relative to negligence actions the Appellants, Emerys, filed for permanent and disabling injuries, the trial court held that Gilberton was not liable for the acts or omissions of its general contractor, Bechtel, and granted summary judgment in favor of Gilberton on that basis. Appellants challenged the trial court entry of summary judgment.
Decision of Court: Finding that the lack of protective devices around the opening in the floor was the result of ordinary negligence of the contractor/subcontractor for which the owner, Gilberton, could not be held liable, it affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment as supported by case law and the record.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Wecht v. PG Pub.Co. 725 A.2d 788 (Pa.Super.1999)
Issue: Appellant claimed that the trial court erred in holding that expert medical testimony is required to prove emotional distress damages and even if the trial court was correct in requiring expert medical testimony, it was error to dismiss his claim as he was still entitled to recover nominal damages if he established the elements of false light-invasion of privacy.
Decision of Court: The Court agreed with the trial court that expert medical testimony was required, but also agreed with Appellant that nominal damages may be awarded in false light-invasion of privacy actions. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings, as Appellant could be awarded nominal damages.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Behar v. Frazier, 724 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 1999)
Issue: After commencing a wrongful use of civil proceedings
suit against attorneys, Frazier and Hardy relative to a medical malpractice
matter, Appellant, Behar, a psychiatrist, and one of the defendants in the
underlying matter, challenged the judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia in favor of Appellee, an attorney, after a non-jury trial. A
default judgment was entered against Hardy. Appellant presented two
issues, including whether the trial court erred in 1) finding in favor of Appellee
where the evidence established met the elements of wrongful use of civil
proceedings and 2) in failing to award damages against Hardy where a default
judgment had already been entered against her and Appellant established
entitlement to damages at trial.
Decision of Court: The Court affirmed because 1) the trial court did not err in determining that Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof and 2) the issue of damages was considered waived since the trial court did not address it in its opinion.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.
Furman v. Shapiro, 721 A.2d 1125 (Pa. Super 1998)
Issue: Relative to injuries sustained by Appellant/plaintiff, Furman, in an automobile accident, Appellant challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the claim on the basis that damages were not recoverable as the limited tort option had been elected and no serious bodily injury was sustained.
Decision of Court: The Court found that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Appellant suffered serious injury thereby reversing and remanding.
Position of Judge: Authored opinion.