24 MAP 2017 | Pa. | Jul 18, 2018
Lead Opinion
The Court orders as follows:
Appellant Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company ("Insurer") is attempting to appeal a Commonwealth Court order that denied Insurer's motion for summary relief. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the order is interlocutory and unappealable at this time. Consequently, we quash the appeal.
By way of background, Insurer filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, naming as respondents Appellees Johnson Matthey, Inc. ("JMI") and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
("DEP"). In its petition, Insurer brought a claim pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act ("DJA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531 - 7541. Specifically, Insurer requested that the court enter an order declaring that Insurer has no obligation to defend or indemnify JMI in connection with a lawsuit filed by the DEP against JMI in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In response to Insurer's petition, JMI filed,
inter alia
, a counterclaim seeking a declaration that Insurer has a duty to pay all defense and indemnity costs related to the site, subject to the liability limits of the unexhausted policies, and that all remedial investigation costs incurred by JMI were properly payable under the policies as defense costs. JMI also advanced a breach of contract claim.
Insurer filed a motion for summary relief, which it styled as a motion for summary judgment.
Insurer timely filed a notice of appeal and a jurisdictional statement. This Court subsequently issued an order directing the parties to address whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal and deferring a determination concerning jurisdiction to consideration of the parties' briefs. The parties have complied with this directive. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal presents a threshold issue.
Burger v. School Bd. of McGuffey School Dist.
,
Generally speaking, appellate courts have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from final orders entered at the trial court level.
Commonwealth v. Scarborough
,
In
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wickett
,
Regarding this Court's jurisdiction over this appeal, the crux of Insurer's argument is that
Wickett
dictates that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the merits of its claim that the Commonwealth Court erred by denying its motion for summary relief.
This Court last expounded upon the appealability of an order declaring the rights of parties in
United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, Inc. v. Department of Banking
("
USOBA
"),
Pennsylvania Bankers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Banking
("
Pennsylvania Bankers
"),
In this matter, the Commonwealth Court has entered an order that effectively denied Insurer's claim for declaratory relief. However, JMI's related, but broader, counterclaim for declaratory relief finally resolving Insurer's obligations to defend and indemnify JMI remains pending in the Commonwealth Court. Consequently, the court's order does not resolve the parties' competing claims for declaratory relief; rather, it merely narrows the dispute. Thus, consistent with
Pennsylvania Bankers
and
USOBA
, the order is not appealable at this time. This outcome comports with this Court's long-standing and well-founded policy against piecemeal litigation.
Pennsylvania Bankers
,
Chief Justice Saylor files a dissenting statement in which Justice Todd joins.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection v. Whittaker Corporation and Johnson Matthey, Inc. , Civil Action No. 08-6010. We will refer to this lawsuit as "the underlying action."
While Insurer and JMI brought claims against the DEP in the Commonwealth Court, neither party sought relief against the DEP. Rather, the parties joined the DEP as a party to comply with this Court's decision in
Vale Chemical Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
,
In response to Insurer's motion for summary relief, JMI highlighted that the discovery process was ongoing. Insurer later filed an application to stay discovery. In an order filed May 16, 2016, the Commonwealth Court granted in part Insurer's application. While the court allowed discovery to proceed with respect to some of JMI's first set of interrogatories and document requests, the court stayed the balance of discovery pending its disposition of Insurer's motion for summary relief. Order, 5/16/2016.
Effective April 1, 2016, Rule 311(a)(8) replaced Rule 341(b)(2). However, the rules are functionally equivalent in that they both explain that an order is final if it is defined as final by statute.
In the alternative, Insurer contends that the Court can grant allowance of appeal in this matter pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1114. Insurer's Brief at 20-26. Insurer's argument is misplaced. The Rules of Appellate Procedure make clear that, where (such as here) the Commonwealth Court enters an order in a matter commenced in its original jurisdiction, Rule 1114 is inapplicable; rather, an appeal from that order should be addressed to this Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1101(a)(1) ("This rule applies to any appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the Commonwealth Court entered in ... [a]ny matter which was originally commenced in the Commonwealth Court and which does not constitute an appeal to the Commonwealth Court from another court, a magisterial district judge or another government unit."); Pa.R.A.P. 1114(a) ("Except as prescribed in Pa.R.A.P. 1101 (appeals as of right from the Commonwealth Court), review of a final order of the Superior Court or the Commonwealth Court is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and an appeal will be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor.").
Dissenting Opinion
I respectfully dissent. None of the decisions referenced by the majority suggest that, after the outright rejection of a party's entire request for declaratory relief by a court of original jurisdiction, the pendency of an adverse party's counterclaim nevertheless serves to defeat the entitlement to an interlocutory appeal as of right under
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wickett,
Respectfully, from my point of view, if Wickett is to be overruled, it would be preferable to do so directly. Under the presently prevailing law, it is my considered judgment that Appellant is entitled to appeal as of right per Wickett 's special rule of appealability for declaratory judgment actions.
Justice Todd joins this dissenting statement.