Stein, B. v. Kenny Ross Toyota
Stein, B. v. Kenny Ross Toyota No. 1085 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 9, 2017Background
- On Dec. 1, 2010, Barry Stein bought a used 2008 Toyota Camry from Kenny Ross Toyota and provided his existing insurance card; the sales agreement included an integration/merger clause and an insurance-information field listing Stein’s insurer (Mutual Benefit).
- On Jan. 23, 2011, Stein had an accident in the Camry; Mutual Benefit informed him the Camry was not covered, Erie Insurance paid the injured third party and sued Stein; Stein later settled with Erie for $22,500.
- Stein sued Kenny Ross in 2015 asserting negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract based on an alleged promise by the dealer to add the Camry to Stein’s policy; the UTPCPL claim was previously dismissed.
- Kenny Ross moved for summary judgment, arguing the written integrated sales agreement contained no promise to obtain insurance, the dealer had no duty to add the vehicle to Stein’s policy, and parol evidence was barred by the merger clause.
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the Superior Court affirmed, holding the integration clause barred parol evidence, the dealer fulfilled its statutory verification duties under the Motor Vehicle Code, and Stein’s extrinsic evidence (depositions, email, title form) did not create a genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dealer promised to add the vehicle to plaintiff’s insurance | Stein: dealer’s statements and documents (sales agreement insurance field, depositions, title form, agent email) show a promise to add the Camry to his policy | Kenny Ross: written sales agreement (integration clause) contains no promise; dealer only verified existence of insurance and had no duty to add vehicle; parol evidence barred | Court held no promise in writing; integration clause bars parol evidence and extrinsic proofs fail to raise a genuine issue |
| Whether parol evidence may be used to vary the written sales agreement | Stein: the sales agreement’s insurance field is ambiguous and does not address duty to obtain insurance, allowing parol evidence | Kenny Ross: the contract is integrated and complete; no ambiguity about insurance responsibility | Court held the contract was integrated and unambiguous on this point; parol evidence inadmissible |
| Whether the dealer owed an independent tort duty to obtain insurance or contact insurer | Stein: dealer’s alleged representations created tort liability (negligence / negligent misrepresentation) | Kenny Ross: statutory duties only require verifying existing financial responsibility; dealer not obligated to add vehicle or contact insurer absent fraud/suspicion | Court held dealer’s duty was limited to verification under motor vehicle law; no actionable tort based on record evidence |
| Whether plaintiff’s extrinsic evidence created a genuine issue of material fact | Stein: depositions, title paperwork, and an email create factual disputes about promised action | Kenny Ross: depositions directly refute any promise; email is hearsay/unspecified; title language reflects verification only | Court held extrinsic evidence was insufficient or inadmissible to defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (parol evidence rule and effect of integration clauses)
- DeArmitt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (limits on relying on party’s own deposition/affidavit to defeat summary judgment)
- Bezjak v. Diamond, 135 A.3d 623 (Pa. Super. 2016) (inadmissible hearsay cannot support or defeat summary judgment)
- Pizzonia v. Colonial Motors, Inc., 639 A.2d 1185 (Pa. Super. 1994) (dealerships must exercise reasonable effort to determine financial responsibility when issuing temporary registration)
- Chenot v. A.P. Green Services, Inc., 895 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. 2006) (summary judgment standard and review)