1554 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jul 18, 2016Background
- RestoreCore contracted with WRD (signed by Wayne DiMarco on behalf of WRD) to restore a building after smoke/soot damage; contract assigned insurance proceeds and required WRD to endorse/deliver insurer checks to RestoreCore. DiMarco (tenant) was the insured.
- RestoreCore completed work in Sept. 2009; insurer (Cincinnati) issued payments to DiMarco totaling the billed amount minus a $5,000 deductible; RestoreCore alleges it was not paid from those proceeds.
- RestoreCore filed suit (2010 action), amended multiple times, and later filed a separate 2013 action; claims included breach of contract (against WRD), unjust enrichment and conversion (against DiMarco), and violations of the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act; parties consolidated.
- Discovery was ongoing; RestoreCore moved for summary judgment against WRD and DiMarco on Oct. 31, 2014 before certain depositions were completed; Appellants opposed, arguing incomplete discovery and disputed facts.
- On April 1, 2015 the trial court granted summary judgment for RestoreCore on the breach-of-contract claim against WRD and the unjust-enrichment claim against DiMarco but left claims for conversion and the Contractor-and-Subcontractor-Payment-Act unresolved; Appellants appealed.
- The Superior Court sua sponte addressed appealability and concluded the April 1, 2015 order was not a final order because it did not dispose of all claims or parties and the trial court had not made the express Rule 341(c) determination; therefore the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by granting summary judgment before close of discovery | RestoreCore argued summary judgment was appropriate on the asserted claims | WRD/DiMarco argued discovery was incomplete and material facts remained | Court did not reach merits; appeal quashed for lack of final order/jurisdiction |
| Whether summary judgment on breach of contract (WRD) was improper given alleged breach of good faith by RestoreCore | RestoreCore sought enforcement of contract and assignment of insurance proceeds | WRD argued factual disputes (fraudulent inflation, poor quality, overstated hours) precluded summary judgment | Not addressed on merits due to jurisdictional defect |
| Whether summary judgment on unjust enrichment (DiMarco) was improper because no benefit flowed to DiMarco | RestoreCore argued unjust enrichment applied because insurer proceeds were paid to DiMarco and not passed to RestoreCore | DiMarco argued no benefit was conferred and disputed RestoreCore’s billing/conduct | Not addressed on merits due to jurisdictional defect |
| Whether the April 1, 2015 order was appealable as a final/interlocutory/collateral order | N/A (plaintiff sought relief below and then judgment) | Appellants sought appellate review; trial court did not certify finality under Pa.R.A.P. 341(c) | Superior Court held the order was not final and no other basis for appeal existed; appeal quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bank, 966 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate courts may inquire sua sponte into appealability)
- Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy, 915 A.2d 668 (Pa. Super. 2007) (court’s power to examine jurisdictional defects at any time)
- Stahl v. Redcay, 897 A.2d 478 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summary of bases for appellate jurisdiction and Rule 341 framework)
- Pace v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 717 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 1998) (discussion of final and interlocutory orders under Rule 341)
- In re N.B., 817 A.2d 530 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of final order under Rule 341)
- In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374 (Pa. Super. 2010) (clarifying when partial adjudication may be appealable and the necessity of Rule 341(c) determination)