Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Modern Gas
143 A.3d 412
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Nationwide insured Ronald Strunk’s commercial building; the first floor housed Coppola’s Pizzeria with two LP gas pizza ovens.
- Modern Gas serviced an oven on Aug 31 and Sept 1, 2009; invoices show cleaning/thermocouple adjustment and a later entry that a 3/4" union leak was fixed and burners/vacuuming performed.
- On Sept 28, 2009 a fire caused by the pizza ovens damaged the property; Nationwide paid $158,811.03 and sued Modern Gas in subrogation for breach of contract and negligence.
- Nationwide’s expert, Michael Zazula, inspected the ovens multiple times and reported that a screw had been inserted into a pilot valve to hold it open, causing a leak; he opined Modern Gas’s failure to perform a proper leak test per NFPA 54 was the primary cause of the incident.
- The trial court granted Modern Gas summary judgment, finding Nationwide failed to prove proximate cause because there was no evidence the screw was in the valve at the time of the Sept 1 service.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the expert report created a genuine dispute on causation that should be resolved by a jury, and the trial court improperly weighed expert credibility at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on negligence/proximate cause | Zazula’s report shows screw was in pilot valve on Sept 1 and Modern Gas’s failure to perform a leak test proximately caused the fire | No proof the screw existed at time of Modern Gas’s service; tampering after service could break causation | Reversed: expert report raised genuine issue of proximate cause for jury; trial court improperly weighed expert credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (summary judgment standard)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (summary judgment: view facts in light most favorable to non-moving party)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (expert conclusions must be deferred to at summary judgment when supported)
- Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 664 A.2d 525 (Pa. 1995) (credibility and weight of expert testimony for jury)
- Grady v. Frito–Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (Deference to scientific experts on admissibility issues)
- Askew By Askew v. Zeller, 521 A.2d 459 (Pa. Super. 1987) (proximate cause may be question for jury when reasonable minds could differ)