Chestnut, D. v. Gardner, D., Chestnut, D. v. Gardner, D. No. 262 MDA 2017

Dennis L. Chestnut (Appellant) owned C & C Tree Service and purchased liability insurance through agent David R. Gardner (Appellee) for policy period August 12, 2012–August 12, 2013.
Chestnut alleged the policy was cancelled effective March 2013 without notice and Gardner failed to procure substitute coverage.
A loss occurred on August 18, 2013, after the original policy period; Chestnut sued for reimbursement of the loss and business interruption resulting from obtaining replacement insurance.
Discovery and a deposition occurred; Gardner moved for summary judgment on December 12, 2016; Chestnut filed a response on January 12, 2017 and oral argument was held January 24, 2017.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Gardner on January 26, 2017; Chestnut appealed, arguing the court failed to consider his response and improperly decided causation as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court considered Chestnut's response before granting summary judgment	Trial court ignored his January 12, 2017 response and thus failed to consider the entire record	Response contained no substantive evidence to counter defendant; court afforded oral argument opportunity	Court affirmed: response was non-substantive; no error in granting summary judgment
Whether genuine factual issues (causation/notice) precluded summary judgment	Chestnut argued factual disputes existed about notice of cancellation and causation of loss	Gardner argued Chestnut was responsible for knowing policy terms and loss occurred after policy expiry	Court held Chestnut failed to raise material factual disputes; summary judgment proper

Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 156 A.3d 1200 (Pa. Super. 2017) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
Greely v. W. Penn Power Co., 156 A.3d 276 (Pa. Super. 2017) (trial court must defer to supported conclusions in nonmoving party's expert report at summary judgment)