Erie Insurance Exchange v. Lutz, M.
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Lutz, M. No. 1838 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- On October 31, 2012, Matthew and Kimberly Lutz and minor Dakotah Miller filed a tort action against Andrew Svrcek arising from a physical altercation; Svrcek pleaded guilty to simple assault.
- At the time, Svrcek had a homeowner’s policy with Erie Insurance; Erie sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Svrcek in the underlying tort action.
- Erie obtained a default judgment against Svrcek for failing to answer the declaratory action. Erie then moved for summary judgment against the Lutzes and Miller.
- The trial court granted Erie’s motion for summary judgment on September 19, 2016 (entered October 7, 2016). Appellants timely appealed and were ordered to file and serve a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement.
- Appellants filed a 1925(b) statement on time but failed to serve it on the trial judge as the order required; the statement was lengthy and culminated in a single, overbroad error claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
- The Superior Court held the issues waived for (1) lack of service on the trial judge and (2) vagueness/overbreadth of the concise statement, and affirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to serve the Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement on the trial judge (despite timely filing) results in waiver | Erie: Appellants failed to comply with the court’s order and Rule 1925(b); failure to serve the judge waives appellate issues | Lutzes: Statement was timely filed with the prothonotary; issues therefore preserved | Court: Waived — Rule 1925(b) requires concurrent service on the judge; failure to serve as ordered waived issues |
| Whether the concise statement’s overbroad/vague single-paragraph error preserves issues | Erie: Statement too general to allow identification of specific issues; insufficient under Rule 1925(b) | Lutzes: (implicitly) their filing sufficed; argued on merits in brief | Court: Waived — the statement was impermissibly vague/overbroad; waiver is mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 588 Pa. 218, 903 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 2006) (appellate courts may sua sponte determine preservation)
- Commonwealth v. Schofield, 585 Pa. 389, 888 A.2d 771 (Pa. 2005) (failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) results in automatic waiver)
- Forest Highlands Cmty. Ass'n v. Hammer, 879 A.2d 223 (Pa. Super. 2005) (filing with prothonotary without serving trial judge does not satisfy Rule 1925(b))
- Egan v. Stroudsburg Sch. Dist., 928 A.2d 400 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (same principle applied by Commonwealth Court)
- $766.00 U.S. Currency v. Commonwealth, 948 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (failure to serve 1925(b) where order required service results in waiver)
- Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 607 Pa. 341, 6 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2010) (trial court’s order language governs appellant’s obligation under Rule 1925)
- In re Estate of Boyle, 77 A.3d 674 (Pa. Super. 2013) (affirming waiver rule despite its harshness)
- Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pa., 893 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues not included in concise statement are waived)
- City of Philadelphia v. Lerner, 151 A.3d 1020 (Pa. 2016) (waiver under Rule 1925(b) is mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (no ad hoc exceptions to waiver rules)
- Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 2006) (generalized statement of error is inadequate)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (a too-vague concise statement is equivalent to none)
- Plasticert, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 923 A.2d 489 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate court may affirm on any valid basis)