Sigall v. Serrano
17 A.3d 946
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Appellants allege a Feb. 26, 1996 collision where Anthony Serrano, driving Barbara Serrano's car, ran a red light and injured Appellants.
- Barbara Serrano denied agency, claiming Anthony lacked permission to drive her car; insurer denied coverage.
- Appellants pursued UM claim against Nationwide; civil suit placed in deferred status pending UM exhaustion.
- UM settlement occurred July 25, 2007; civil action reactivated July 2, 2009 for arbitration.
- Arbitration occurred Sept. 30, 2009; Appellants did not appear; panel ruled for Serranos; they appealed arbitration and pursued trial.
- On Mar. 22, 2010 Serranos filed electronically a motion in limine and a “motion to dismiss”; they argued judicial estoppel and failure to name Barbara and risk of double recovery.
- Appellants did not timely respond; April 16, 2010, trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
- Appellants contend improper service of the motion to dismiss, depriving them of due process; the court agreed and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants were properly served with the motion to dismiss. | Sigall/Henry were not served; no consent to electronic service. | Serranos claim service via electronic filing; counsel participated; consent implied. | Appellants were not properly served; due process denied; reversal and remand. |
| Whether electronic service complied with rules given lack of consent. | No consent to electronic service in this case. | Electronic service permitted with consent; Philadelphia rule interpreted broadly. | Rule 205.4(g)(1)(ii) requires case-specific consent; improper in this case. |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting a to-dismiss motion based on improper service. | Dismissing without opportunity to respond is error. | Motion uncontested due to deemed service. | Abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded. |
| Whether due process requires giving Appellants chance to respond to the motion to dismiss. | Appellants lacked notice and opportunity to respond. | Court believed proper service; no prejudice shown apart from service issue. | Due process requires reversal; prejudice established. |
| What is the appropriate procedural treatment of the Serranos' filing given the record? | Treat as summary judgment/motion for dismissal; but service flaw taints. | Motion was properly filed; merits unaffected by service. | Remand for proper proceedings; treat as appropriate under law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Touloumes v. E.S.C., Inc., 587 Pa. 287 (Pa. 2006) (standard de novo for questions of law; discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa.2010) (abuse of discretion standard for grant of summary judgment)
- Lachat v. Hinchcliffe, 769 A.2d 481 (Pa.Super.2001) (due process and proper procedure; prejudice for lack of notice)
- DiGregorio v. Keystone Health Plan E.,, 840 A.2d 361 (Pa.Super.2003) (motion to dismiss treated as summary judgment in context of case)
- Geisler v. Motorists Mut. Insurance Co., 382 Pa.Super. 622, 556 A.2d 391 (Pa.Super. 1989) (phantom vehicle and collateral recovery considerations in UM context)