Oliver, J. v. Irvello, S.
2017 Pa. Super. 184
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiff (Oliver), a limited-tort motorist, sued Defendant (Irvello) for injuries from a May 26, 2011 car accident; jury found Defendant negligent but concluded Plaintiff did not sustain a "serious impairment of a bodily function."
- Because Plaintiff elected limited tort, a finding of non-serious injury precluded recovery of noneconomic damages; verdict resulted in no compensatory award and the trial court entered judgment for Defendant.
- Plaintiff moved to correct the docket to show he was the "verdict winner" so he could recover costs under 42 Pa.C.S. § 1726(a)(2); the trial court denied the motion and sanctioned Plaintiff $500 in counsel fees under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7).
- Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (denied) and ultimately obtained entry of judgment on the verdict; he appealed the judgment and sanctions.
- The Superior Court held the appeal was properly from the judgment on the verdict, affirmed denial of the motion to correct the record (Plaintiff was not a prevailing party under limited-tort rules), but reversed the award of attorney’s fees as an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff was the "prevailing party" for costs after jury found liability but no serious injury in a limited-tort case | Oliver: jury found liability so he prevailed and should recover costs | Irvello: limited-tort statute bars recovery of noneconomic damages; absence of ability to recover means Plaintiff did not prevail | Held: Not prevailing—limited-tort election precludes proceeding for noneconomic damages when no serious injury; court affirmed denial of correction request |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by awarding $500 counsel fees under 42 Pa.C.S. § 2503(7) for filing the motion to correct the record | Oliver: motion was reasonable, not frivolous, based on interpretation and case authority | Irvello: motion lacked merit and warranted sanction | Held: Abuse of discretion to award fees—petition was not wholly without legal or factual grounds; reversal of fee award |
| Whether unpublished Superior Court memorandum (Bailey) could support Oliver’s position | Oliver: relied on Bailey decision supporting his view | Irvello: opposed reliance on unpublished memorandum | Held: Court refused to consider unpublished memorandum (IOP §65.37); in any event Bailey was not a limited-tort case and not controlling |
| Whether reconsideration should have been granted based on intervening trial-court decision (Bailey) | Oliver: trial court should have reconsidered in light of Bailey | Irvello: reconsideration not warranted | Held: Court did not reach this issue as disposition on other grounds made it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2008) (appellate jurisdiction generally limited to final orders)
- De Fulvio v. Holst, 362 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super. 1976) (prevailing party ordinarily recovers costs)
- Zelenak v. Mikula, 911 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2006) ("prevailing party" means party in whose favor judgment is rendered)
- Zavatchen v. RHF Holdings, Inc., 907 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court discretion in determining "substantially prevailing party")
- Profit Wize Mktg. v. Wiest, 812 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of prevailing party as one in whose favor judgment is rendered)
- Cadena v. Latch, 78 A.3d 636 (Pa. Super. 2013) (limited-tort plaintiff must prove serious injury to recover noneconomic damages)
- Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1998) (threshold serious-impairment determination typically for jury)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (standard of review for fee awards: abuse of discretion)
- Miller v. Nelson, 768 A.2d 858 (Pa. Super. 2001) (vexatious or meritless suits may justify counsel-fee sanctions)
- In re Barnes Foundation, 74 A.3d 129 (Pa. Super. 2014) (fees inappropriate where petition is not wholly without legal or factual grounds)