In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation
51 A.3d 224
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- This appeal challenges the July 27, 2011 denial of a recusal motion filed by Certain Class Plaintiffs in the Bridgeport Fire Litigation, and the court quashes the appeal.
- The Bridgeport Fire Litigation arises from the May 15, 2001 Continental Business Center fire in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania, with class certification on April 14, 2003 and class counsel appointed.
- A partial settlement occurred on February 19, 2008 for $80,000,000; subsequent settlements brought total settlements to $35,000,000, and Gary Silow was appointed claims administrator.
- A recusal motion was filed May 14, 2009, alleging bias; prior appellate panels vacated related orders and remanded for ruling on recusal, incentive payments, and claims administrator fees.
- On remand, Judge O’Neill ruled promptly on the recusal issue (July 27, 2011) but had not yet ruled on incentive payments or fees; appellate review followed after those steps.
- The court ultimately quashed the appeal, holding the recusal order was interlocutory and not ripe for direct review until other pending matters were resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying recusal. | Haviland; bias shown by Judge O’Neill demands recusal. | O’Neill; no demonstrated prejudice; standing issue clouded recusal. | Appeal quashed; merits not reached; recusal order interlocutory. |
| Whether the denial of recusal was proper given prior recusal action by co-plaintiffs. | Certain Class Plaintiffs had standing to seek recusal based on similar circumstances. | Co-plaintiffs’ recusal does not compel denial; different posture. | Appeal quashed; issues dependent on remand rulings not yet resolved. |
| Whether an out-of-county judge should hear remaining issues affecting subsisting rights. | Out-of-county judge should be appointed for remaining issues. | Not necessary to decide here; procedural posture governs. | Appeal quashed; issue not ripe for direct review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rohm and Haas Co. v. Lin, 992 A.2d 132 (Pa.Super.2010) (recusal orders are interlocutory and reviewable accordingly)
- In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 5 A.3d 1250 (Pa.Super.2010) (standing to seek recusal; remand for ruling; instruction to rule on related motions)
- In re Bridgeport Fire Litigation, 8 A.3d 1270 (Pa.Super.2010) (affirmation of remand and related orders; related appeals)
- American Independent Insurance Co. v. E.S., 809 A.2d 388 (Pa.Super.2002) (finality and collateral-order considerations in review)