Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Pennsylvania State University
63 A.3d 792
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Penn State disputes PMA's duty to defend/indemnify under general liability policies in a coverage action and a related Centre County suit.
- Doe A v. Penn State (underlying sexual abuse suit) prompted Penn State to claim coverage; PMA issued a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action in Philadelphia County.
- Penn State filed a Centre County action alleging breach of contract and bad faith by PMA; PMA sought coordination/transfer to Philadelphia County under Pa.R.C.P. 218.1.
- Philadelphia County Action and Centre County Action were coordinated and transferred to Philadelphia County by Judge New; Penn State appealed to challenge the coordination.
- The issue on appeal is whether the Philadelphia County forum is a fair and efficient setting under Rule 213.1(c), not whether coordination is appropriate.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding coordination in Philadelphia County complied with Rule 213.1(c) and did not abuse discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly coordinated actions under Rule 213.1(c). | Penn State argues improper weighting of factors; Centre County is more convenient. | PMA contends Philadelphia is fair and efficient; Rule 213.1(c) requires balancing factors, not sole convenience. | Yes; coordination in Philadelphia was proper and not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether convenience was given undue primacy in the decision. | Convenience to Penn State should be primary given geographic distance. | Convenience is one factor among several; fair and efficient adjudication controls. | No; convenience was not dispositive; court properly weighed all factors. |
| whether the court properly considered tangential factors (e.g., first-filed action). | First-filed status should weigh heavily in location. | Rule 218.1(c) allows consideration of other matters beyond the enumerated factors. | Yes; court could consider additional factors and did so appropriately. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. FedEx Ground Package System, 995 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 2010) (primary goal is a fair and efficient adjudication; convenience not dispositive)
- Vale Chemical Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 512 Pa. 290, 516 A.2d 684 (Pa. 1986) (establishes coordination framework under Rule 218.1)
- Wohlsen/Crow v. Pettinato Associated Contractors & Engineers, Inc., 446 Pa. Super. 215, 666 A.2d 701 (Pa. Super. 1995) (convenience not sole factor in coordination decisions)