Harford Ins. Co. v. Lilly Cab Corp.
632 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- Harford Insurance Company (a/s/o Clean and Polish Building Solutions) obtained a December 17, 2014 settlement agreement and later filed a praecipe for writ of summons and a Petition to Enforce Settlement on November 20, 2015.
- The trial court granted the petition on January 25, 2016, ordering IOA and Spectrum to pay $5,000 plus interest and $1,180 in attorneys’ fees.
- An administrative liquidation order for Pinelands Insurance Company prompted the trial court to mark the matter deferred on February 5, 2016.
- Appellants (Insurance Office of America and Spectrum) filed a motion for reconsideration and a timely notice of appeal; the trial court purported to grant reconsideration and vacate its January 25 order on March 17, 2016—after the 30‑day window and after the appeal was filed.
- Appellants contended they were never served and therefore the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and that the matter should have been deferred under the Pinelands liquidation administrative order.
- The Superior Court vacated the January 25 order and remanded for the trial court to properly address the motion for reconsideration, appellants’ jurisdictional and deferral arguments, and enter an appropriate order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the Jan. 25, 2016 enforcement order given alleged lack of service | Harford: settlement/enforcement order was validly entered | IOA/Spectrum: never served, thus no personal jurisdiction | Remanded — court must address appellants’ lack‑of‑service/personal‑jurisdiction arguments on remand |
| Whether the case should have been deferred under the Pinelands liquidation administrative order | Harford: proceeded with enforcement petition | IOA/Spectrum: administrative order required deferral of matters involving Pinelands or its insureds | Remanded for trial court to consider deferral argument in light of the liquidation order |
| Whether the trial court properly vacated its Jan. 25 order by granting reconsideration after 30 days and after appeal | Harford: (did not file brief) implicitly relied on trial court action | IOA/Spectrum: trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration after appeal and 30‑day period | Superior Court held the March 17 purported reconsideration was untimely; trial court lacked jurisdiction to act but remanded so trial court can properly dispose of the motion |
| Appropriate remedy for procedural errors | Harford: enforcement awarded originally | IOA/Spectrum: seek reversal/vacatur based on procedural defects | Superior Court vacated the enforcement order and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 (Pa. Super. 2007) (trial court’s power to modify or rescind orders under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505)
- Stephens v. Messick, 799 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 2002) (Rule 1701(b)(3) allows tolling only when court expressly grants reconsideration within appeal period)
- Valley Forge Ctr. Assocs. v. Rib‑It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. 1997) (trial court loses power to act if it fails to expressly grant reconsideration within 30 days)
- In re Deed of Trust of McCargo, 652 A.2d 1330 (Pa. Super. 1994) (lapse of 30 days or filing of notice of appeal vitiates trial court jurisdiction to modify an order)