*1 550 witnesses whose cross-exam- case, the In the instant of in excess of years were each was circumscribed
ination cross-examined con- extensively been already age; they to appellant’s prosecu- which rise gave incidents cerning towards tion; feelings appellant bias and bitter and their Furthermore, as testimony. their throughout were apparent sought counsel noted, appellant’s the basic facts placed were in fact victim and her husband from the extract trial court’s limitation factfinder. The before the therefore, was, not clearly of cross-examination scope nor does judgment, exercise unreasonable manifestly partiality, it was the result of any record disclose that Consequently, against appellant. ill-will, prejudice bias of discretion. did not constitute abuse the instant rulings Schmidt, 563, 568-69, v. 263 A.2d Commonwealth Robinson, v. (1970); Commonwealth Greene, supra. Commonwealth (1969); sentence is affirmed. judgment ROBERTS, J., concurred the result. J., in the result.
NIX, concurred AUGUST, Appellant,
Timothy E. STASAK, Mary George John M. Stasak. Ruth Stasak and W. BELZNER, Appellant,
David M. STASAK. John Pennsylvania. Supreme Court Argued Oct. 1980. Feb. 1981.
Decided *2 August. E. Hensel, Bethlehem, Timothy Paul C. Bethlehem, Belzner. for David C. B. Taylor, Robertson Allentown, Traud, Jr., for appellee. Thomas F. LARSEN, ROBERTS, NIX, J., and O'BRIEN, Before KAUFFMAN, JJ. FLAHERTY and
OPINION LARSEN, Justice. policy provision an insurance
This case involves the insurance notify compa- promptly the insured to requires At one time such or loss.1 in the event of an accident ny Commonwealth, our enforced in were provisions strictly from its company the insurance late notice would release not harm notice did duties, where the late contractual even Meierdierck See way. the in company any insurance policy provides: 1. The in this case NOTICE loss, accident, written notice occurrence or In the event of identify Insured and also containing particulars sufficient to time, respect place and reasonably information obtainable injured thereof, and addresses circumstances and the names by witnesses, given the Insured to the or for shall be available agents practicable... any as Company as soon or of its authorized Insured, against he shall brought If claim is made or suit is notice, demand, every Company sum- immediately forward representative ... process his him or mons or other received THE COMPANY —... ACTION AGAINST unless, against Company as condition No shall lie action complied fully thereto, with all the precedent have the Insured shall policy terms of this ... However, we A.2d 406 Miller, 484, 147 394 Pa. in Brakeman v. approach enforcement the strict rejected (1977), Co., Potomac Insurance compa- release the notice would that late holding Whether the prejudicial. notice was where the late ny only to cases on retroactively be applied new law should is the issue in this decided when this Court case. 22, 1973. on November occurred question
The accident which struck telephone of a car John was the driver Stasak Belzner and David C. August E. Timothy pole, injuring in the car. John Stasak passengers who were (appellants) not inform their insurance did and his parents (appellees) later on June seven months of the accident until appellees; sued the 25, 1974. had August already Appellant The insurance com- Belzner sued soon thereafter. appellant refused to defend indem- the claim but investigated pany notice required prompt asserting nify appellees, counsel retained their own was not given. Appellees but on August, May defend the suit of appellant $12,150.26. Belzner Appellant recovered a verdict August 4, 1975, and a August obtained a default judgment $4,120.00. These verdict was rendered in the amount trials both occurred well after
notice of the accident. instituted judgments, order to their satisfy insurance compa- against appellees’
attachment proceedings found that the trial, At the court expressly 1975. ny *4 the late notice was not prejudiced by insurance company witnesses, to all because the had access defense and coun- appellee’s personal accident police report, time to for trial Furthermore, prepare adequate sel’s files. However, the court denied late notice. remained even after refusal was relief, company’s that holding Stasak, No. 387 August law. under the proper (Court Term 1975 1974, No. 356 January Term January 1, filed February of Northampton County, Common Pleas Court was 1977, Superior while an 1977). 554 decided case, supra, in this this Court
pending
Court, however,
law. The
refused
Superior
and
changed
in Brakeman
to
case
holding
retroactively
to
our
apply
Stasak,
311,
253 Pa.Super.
384
August
and denied relief.
and Spaeth
Hoffman
dissented
(1978). Judges
pending
new law to cases
extended the
would have
to consider this question.
We
allocatur
appeal.
granted
decision is silent as to
This
Court’s
to cases
on appeal,
the holding applies
whether
applied
the new law was
retroactively
although
Also, recourse to
litigation.
precedent
to
parties
rule
no fixed
as what effect
inconclusive because there is
law,
At
should have.
common
an
overruling
an
decision
retroactive.
Buradus v.
See
overruling
normally
decision is
Co.,
Justice Traynor whether an deciding test for over- elegant has proposed balancing the will have retroactive ruling decision effect— imposed upon parties: hardships traditional toward antipathy A is mindful of the judge recurring from its association springs retroactive law that that a and reckons with the injustice possibility substantial hardship. entail overruling retroactive could be to make such an overrul- He nevertheless may impelled those who impose upon it have ing hardships if the would not so as the great precedent appear relied upon to those who would remain that would inure under overrul- prospective saddled with a bad precedent be so badly outworn ing precedent only. ..[T]he *5 worn it engendered that whatever reliance would hardly be worthy protection. Giustizia; R., Vita, La Dolce La Rude Or Hard
Traynor, Law, 223, Can Cases Make Good U.Chi.L.Rev. 231-32 (1962). the this case
Balancing clearly mandates The equities that the this case are appellants prevail. the same in the Brakeman as the case which exactly equities characterized the law as permitting forfeiture and being inequitable: an insurance
Allowing company, has collected full to refuse premiums coverage, compensation to an notice, accident victim or insured on the late ground where it is not shown notice would have timely put in a more favorable is severe position, unduly and inequitable. 73, 371 A.2d supra Pa. at at 196.
This Court will not
protect
expectations
an unfair forfeiture
in an
by enforcing
provision
Forfeitures of insurance
are not
policy.
policies
favored
either at law or in
Poles v.
Mutual Benefit
State
equity.
297,
The Brakeman decision also
to effectuate
sought
reasonable
of the insured that
would
expectations
coverage
not be forfeited
late notice:
do not
by nonprejudicial
“[W]e
think such
with the
comports
a result
reasonable
[forfeiture]
expectations
policies.”
of those who
Id.
purchase
472 Pa. at
generally
Therefore,
advanced
Justice
approach
applying
fact,
case is
this
factu
prevail.
must
Traynor, appellants
case and
well have been
similar
ally
if Brakeman had not
overruled
law
the case which
on
Since
pending
appeal.
this case was
been decided while
between
and the
appellants
can be drawn
no distinction
availa
the same relief should be
in
injured party
Commonwealth,
156, 165,
v.
ble.
Gibson
See:
Mr.
where in an
situation
(1980)
analogous
A.2d
principled
“There is no
for this court:
Justice Roberts stated
whose causes
now against
reason to discriminate
... both classes
overruling
also accrued before
decision]
[the
measure,
equal
Commonwealth
of suits affect the
in like fashion.”
therefore must be treated
is in
accord with
perfect
Brakeman retroactively
Applying
in this state. See: Kuchinic
numerous recent decisions
of con
(1966) (change
It is unnecessary late prejudiced by was not Court is reversed. notice. The order of the Superior *7 ROBERTS, J., concurring opinion filed a FLAHERTY, J., O’BRIEN, J., joined. C. and and ROB- FLAHERTY, J., the majority opinion joins ERTS, J., concurring opinion.
NIX, in the result. J. concurred ROBERTS, Justice, concurring. are enti-
I with Mr. Justice Larsen that agree decision in Brakeman tled to the benefit of this Court’s Co., 472 Pa. Potomac Insurance the time These on direct at appeal cases were litigants “it is unfair to Manifestly, Brakeman was decided. them to a law that subject whose case is not final to yet decision-making now Even-handed as offensive. recognized individuals on direct situated requires similarly Hill, be treated the same.” Commonwealth v. J., (1980) (Roberts, Support Opinion J., J.). Reversal, O’Brien, Flaherty, C. joined by therefore, must be reversed. Court,
orders of the Superior FLAHERTY, J., concurring O’BRIEN, J., join opinion.