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 filed a petition to enforce a December 17, 2014 settlement and obtained an order (Jan. 25, 2016) requiring IOA and Spectrum to pay $5,000 plus interest and $1,180 in attorneys’ fees.
- The writ of summons and petition to enforce were filed November 20, 2015; Pinelands Insurance Company was in liquidation under an administrative order issued Sept. 3, 2015.
- Appellants (Insurance Office of America and Spectrum) claimed they were never served and were not parties to any underlying litigation; they also argued the matter should have been deferred because of Pinelands’ liquidation.
- Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on Feb. 19, 2016 and a motion for reconsideration on Feb. 17, 2016; the trial court entered a purported nunc pro tunc grant of reconsideration and vacated its January 25 order on March 17, 2016—after the 30-day period and after appeal was filed.
- This Superior Court panel concluded the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its order after the appeal/30-day period, vacated the Jan. 25 order, and remanded for the trial court to properly address appellants’ jurisdictional and deferral arguments and resolve the motion for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harford) | Defendant's Argument (IOA / Spectrum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction / service of process | Appellee asserted settlement enforcement was proper and judgment against appellants was authorized. | Appellants said they were never served and were not parties, so the court lacked personal jurisdiction to enter the Jan. 25 order. | Court declined to affirm enforcement; remanded for consideration of appellants’ jurisdictional claims. |
| Validity/enforceability of settlement order | Settlement and award were properly entered Dec. 17 and enforced Jan. 25. | Settlement enforcement should not proceed where defendants were not served and where liquidation/deferral applied. | Court vacated prior enforcement order and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Trial court's ability to grant reconsideration after appeal/30 days | (Implicit) Trial court acted within discretion to reconsider. | Appellants argued the trial court lost jurisdiction once appeal was filed and 30 days expired. | Court held trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration on March 17, 2016 because it was beyond 30 days and after notice of appeal; remand required for proper disposition. |
| Effect of Pinelands’ liquidation / administrative deferral order | Enforcement should proceed against those responsible despite liquidation. | Appellants argued the Sept. 3, 2015 administrative order required deferral of matters involving Pinelands or its insureds, so the petition should have been deferred. | Court noted the deferred status issue and remanded for the trial court to consider and apply the administrative liquidation order. |
Key Cases Cited
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussing trial court authority 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) permits reconsideration only if expressly granted within the 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 grant reconsideration expressly 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 alter the order)