48 Pa. D. & C.5th 280
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Two insured homeowners (Polanski and Kram) had identical Nazareth Mutual homeowners policies and timely submitted hail-loss claims in 2013.
- At Nazareth Mutual’s request each insured signed and returned a sworn proof of loss (POL); Nazareth Mutual then issued checks for the POL amounts and both insureds cashed the checks.
- Both insureds asserted appraisal rights under their policies contemporaneously with or shortly after submitting POLs.
- Nazareth Mutual filed declaratory-judgment actions seeking a declaration that the POLs, the checks, and cashing the checks fixed the amount of loss and precluded appraisal.
- Two other judges denied Nazareth Mutual’s summary-judgment motions on identical grounds (POL/checks/cashing do not as a matter of law cap the loss or bar appraisal).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment relying on the unchanged record; the court granted defendants summary judgment on Nazareth Mutual’s complaints and denied defendants’ separate motion for clarification as unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether POLs/checks/cashing fix the amount of loss and bar appraisal | POLs and insureds’ cashing of checks admit or settle the loss amount, so appraisal is inappropriate | POLs/checks/cashing do not, as a matter of law, cap loss where insureds timely invoked appraisal | Court: POL/checks/cashing insufficient to bar appraisal; Nazareth Mutual not entitled to declaratory relief |
| Whether summary judgment for Nazareth Mutual was proper earlier | Nazareth Mutual argued genuine issues existed but sought declaration | Defendants argued evidence presented did not establish entitlement as matter of law; prior judges agreed | Court: prior denials show Nazareth’s evidence cannot establish its claim; now defendants entitled to judgment when burden shifts |
| Whether unchanged record defeats Nazareth Mutual’s case | Nazareth relied on same record presented to prior judges | Defendants argued Nazareth produced no new evidence to meet its burden | Court: lack of new evidence means Nazareth failed to produce facts essential to its claim; judgment for defendants |
| Whether court should issue a Rule 1035.5 clarification or case-management order | Nazareth Mutual implicitly opposed but did not raise new points | Defendants asked the court to state counterclaims proceed to trial | Court: denied clarification as unnecessary; counterclaims remain and normal case-management rules apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Lance v. Wyeth, 85 A.3d 434 (Pa. 2014) (summary judgment prongs and standard)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment standard)
- Barnish v. KWI Bldg. Co., 916 A.2d 642 (Pa. Super. 2007) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Ario v. Ingram Micro, Inc., 965 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 2009) (view record in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998) (conflicting inferences preclude summary judgment)
- Young v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., 744 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 2000) (failure to produce essential evidence entitles moving party to judgment)
- Hydropress Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Twp. of Upper Mount Bethel, 836 A.2d 912 (Pa. 2003) (same summary judgment standard for declaratory judgment actions)
- Bensalem Twp. Sch. Dist. v. Commonwealth, 544 A.2d 1318 (Pa. 1988) (procedural limits on entering summary judgment against the moving party)