Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
10 A.3d 347
Pa. Super. Ct.2010Background
- Automobile accident July 2, 2002 in Pittsburgh; Jordan uninsured, collided with Marlette vehicle.
- Marlettes hold State Farm UM policy with $250,000 stacked coverage.
- Jury awarded Marlette $550,000 and Marleen Marlette $150,000; molded verdict reduced to $233,306.98 due to policy limits and prior payment.
- Marlettes sought Rule 238 delay damages on the $550,000 verdict; trial court awarded $28,223.76 based on molded amount.
- State Farm cross-appealed, arguing delay damages cannot exceed policy limits; issue framed as choice-of-law and interpretation of Rule 238.
- Court vacates judgment and remands for recalculation of delay damages on the actual jury verdict rather than the molded amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 238 delay damages are procedural and governed by Pennsylvania law | Marlettes rely on Rule 238 as procedural. | State Farm argues Florida law governs; delay damages limited by policy. | Rule 238 procedural; Pennsylvania law applies; delay damages computed under PA rules. |
| Whether delay damages can exceed UM policy limits | Damages should align with compensatory award and not be capped by policy. | Delay damages capped by policy limits under governing law. | Delay damages may exceed policy limits; not barred by UM policy alone. |
| Whether delay damages should be calculated on the jury verdict or the molded amount reflecting policy limits | Damages should be based on the jury's compensatory verdict ($550,000). | Damages should be based on the molded amount ($233,306.98). | Delay damages must be calculated on the jury verdict, not the molded amount; remand to recompute. |
| Whether Allen/LaRue/Laudenberger framework controls this case over State Farm’s cross-appeal | These cases support calculating on the compensatory amount. | Allen/LaRue limited to scenarios with statutory or stipulated caps. | Allen/LaRue control; delay damages based on compensatory amount; not limited by policy cap here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of Allegheny County, 436 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1981) (Rule 238 to alleviate delay and encourage settlements; procedural scope)
- Pivirotto v. Pittsburgh, 528 A.2d 125 (Pa. 1987) (Rule 238 is procedural; PA law governs when substantive questions arise)
- Allen v. Mellinger, 784 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2001) (Delays damages based on compensatory amounts even where statutory caps apply; clarifies interpretation of Rule 238)
- LaRue v. McGuire, 885 A.2d 549 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Voluntary limits on liability can shift delay damages to be based on capped amount; distinguishes private litigants from statutory caps)
- Thompson v. T.J. Whipple Constr. Co., 985 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super. 2009) (High/low settlements are not controlling; delay damages not automatically included beyond negotiated limits)