*1 those sections Court concluded that The registered the Commonwealth all motor vehicles required loss coverage bene providing for basic carry insurance coverage such providing that a contract Reasoning fits. the statutory provisions, under those imposed by law was contractu specific held that the absence Superior Court coverage the failure collect the provision providing al could not override statu premium additional therefor of the No-Fault Act. Because adminis provisions tory regulations promulgate contrary not agency may trative expressed statutory provisions, legislative intent Department’s held Superior Court Insurance for the reason. regulation controlling not same of this agree analysis Court’s issue. We with responsible payment is the PSMI insurance carrier claim for basic loss benefits as carrier plaintiff’s coverage motorcycle. for the providing is Superior Court affirmed. Justice, participate Former did matter.
decision this
PAPADAKOS, J., dissents.
Bertrand JOHNSON Susan h/w trand L. West J. Johnson Susan t/a Styles. End Appeal of L. JOHNSON. Pennsylvania.
Supreme Argued Jan. 1989.
Decided Oct. *2 Quakertown, appellant. A. Litzenberger, Samuel Borek, appellee. D. Harold FLAHERTY, C.J., LARSEN, NIX, Before ZAPPALA, McDERMOTT, PAPADAKOS JJ. THE OF COURT
OPINION FLAHERTY, Justice. from an order
This is *3 from an order of the Court of appeal which dismissed an peti- denied a County Montgomery Common Pleas of which Johnson, judgment by filed Susan L. strike/open tion to 377, Pa.Super. 369 535 appellant Ryan herein. of case is as (1987). background A.2d The factual follows. 1981, signed
In her installment and husband appellant 1983, $20,000.00. In failed to they note in the amount of installment, $3,600.00, due on the note. which was pay an permitting the The note an acceleration clause contained upon of the note due holder to the entire balance declare note, Richard P. The holder any payment. default herein, his under that rights exercised Ryan, appellee of judgment The contained a confession clause. note 1983, behest, 14, Ryan’s judgment at clause. On October in Montgomery County. and entered confessed 1983, filed On October 2, 1986, after oral On December strike/open judgment. conducted, relief was petition had been arguments upon the Pleas. In connection with by denied Common no relief, the offered statement denying its order following: only stated its rationale. order “[A]fter argument consideration of the counsel, briefs of the Petition of defendant Susan L. Strike/Open Johnson To Judgment is dismissed and the prayer for relief denied.” provided The record no indication of the basis for the court’s order. filed a
Appellant appeal notice of on December The Court of Common Pleas ordered subsequently to file a concise statement of complained matters of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. provides: which
(b) Direction to File Statement of Matters Com- plained of. The lower court forthwith enter an may directing the appellant to file of record in the lower court and serve on the trial a concise statement of the matters complained of on the no later than 14 days entry after of such order. A failure to comply with such direction may be considered by appellate court order, as a waiver of all objections to the ruling or other complained matter of.
In response, appellant filed the following statement of matters of on appeal: Appellant, Lewis-Johnson, intends complain on of all issues raised either at oral argument or in pleadings. Appellant cannot be more specific without issues, the Court addressing those the right reserves to file additional reasons after receiv- ing opinion of the Appellant Court. has no knowl- edge of the basis for the Order of Court until review of Opinion in support thereof. *4 27, 1987, On March the court decided that this statement was inadequate opinion that, and issued an recommending provisions to the 1925(b), waiver of Pa.R.A.P. supra, the Superior Court should dismiss the appeal. The rationale offered was that failed to comply with requirements the of Pa.R.A.P. in that the statement proffered lacking was too in clarity and specificity with respect to the appeal issues raised on as to permit prepara- tion of opinion providing the Superior Court the with lower regarding court’s rationale those issues.
559 recommending that opinion receipt of the court’s Upon promptly appeal, appellant the Court dismiss Superior the satisfy in to an effort a detailed statement more submitted not, however, to this respond court did court. The proceed- raised of all the issues reiteration detailed ability subsequently held that ing.1 The Court by impeded was review appellate exercise effective discussing the from the lower lack of an Silver, Pa. 499 appeal. Citing Commonwealth issues on (1982), we stated that 228, 238, where 452 A.2d 1925(b) can be properly in Pa.R.A.P. provisions the waiver by defeated review is where effective invoked complained of on of matters to file a statement failure appeal. Appel- dismissed the appeal, of file more detailed statement initial failure to a lant’s all objec- “a of appeal on was deemed waiver issues raised of,” 1925(b). Pa.R.A.P. the order ... tions to under proper as do not dismissal regard We presented. the circumstances right a to an
Appellant has constitutional strike/open denying judgment. a from the order appeal). attempt An (right Art. See Pa. Const. § by the actions in this case right exercise that was frustrated Granted, the statement Common Pleas. of the Court of 1925(b) to Pa.R.A.P. filed initially by appellant pursuant “all issues raised scope, stated that broad it would be argument pleadings” either at oral Yet, apparent on it is not pursued appeal. the court specific, more since substantially been
could have for its no indication of the reasons given absolutely had decision. an indication case there was
This is where the court to set duty the court’s rationale. record of 1925(a): in Pa.R.A.P. is provided forth its rationale challenges by appellant to the confessed included Issues raised venue, entry premature upon allegedly improper judgment based consideration, entry judgment judgment, or failure of lack debt, debtor, charged etc. wrong on the against usurious interest *5 (a) Upon General Rule. receipt of the notice of who entered appealed from, the order if reasons the order do already record, appear shall forthwith file of record at least statement, a brief in the form of an opinion, order, the reasons for the for the or other rulings of, matters complained or shall in specify writing the place the record where such reasons may be found.
(Emphasis added). Numerous issues were raised in the case, and, present inasmuch as the reasons for the court’s record, order do not appear there was no way appellant to know which issues the court viewed favorably Indeed, which issues it had rejected. there was no way to know whether the issues had even been considered by the court. Obviously, unless one knows the basis for a order, court’s there way is no to specifically challenge rationale. Accordingly, appellant’s course to challenge the order in its entirety, all pursuing issues raised.
When one seeking appeal has no basis record to discern the basis for the order being challenged, 1925(b) Pa.R.A.P. must not be employed trap as a to defeat review, requiring specifically stated challenges to the resolution of issues before there has been any revela tion as to how the issues have been resolved. The mere fact relief has been denied strike/open judgment does not disclose the court’s views on issues, where, individual particularly case, as in this multi ple issues were involved. of Appellate Rules Procedure are to be “liberally
construed to secure the just, speedy inexpensive deter- mination of matter every to which they applicable.” are 105(a) added). Pa.R.A.P. (emphasis Dismissal of the appeal below cannot be considered “just,” given appellant’s timely filing of a statement of matters complained of on appeal 1925(b). Pa.R.A.P. If the Court of Common Pleas viewed the statement furnished by appellant as not specific to adequately permit preparation of an addressing the issues on appeal, it should have ordered that *6 Under the circumstanc- statement be filed. explicit a more for explanation reasonable there was a where presented, es filed, initially and the statement specificity lack of a statement submitted revised appellant promptly where initial with the of the court’s dissatisfaction learning upon dismissing the statement, ap- erred in Superior Court that if Court believed peal. Certainly, failure to by the lower court’s hampered be review would 1925(a), have remanded for it could with Pa.R.A.P. comply for remand to the Court compliance. We such opinion. with this proceedings consistent reversed, and case remanded. Order J., participate former did not of this case. decision
LARSEN, J., dissenting opinion joined by a files PAPADAKOS, J.
LARSEN, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. recog- correctly and the trial court herein
Superior Court student, not nized, it is for any first law that year as would desires to litigant to as to the issues speculate the court not litigant If the does know preserve review. taken, litigant to that is grounds the is be what is faith, taking appeal, not an acting in bad should be taking action. is subject disciplinary to if to write judges only required are appeal, there is appeal. statement of failing file the clear and concise
By by the trial appeal, of on as ordered complained matters 1925(b), appellant, to Pa.R.A.P. Rule of. all objections L. waived recom- note that the trial court interesting is It after viola- appellant’s dismissal because mended mystically was somehow able of Rule tion To appeal. suggest her grounds to divine for the trial court’s order before did not know the basis trial court recommended the dismissal is to engage of pure sophistry. exercise I Accordingly, would affirm the order of Superior
which the appeal. dismissed
PAPADAKOS, J., joins this dissenting opinion.
Argued Oct. 1988. Decided Oct. Shmukler, Stanford Philadelphia, appellant. Barthold, Gaele McLaughlin Dist. Deputy Atty., Ronald Eisenberg, Chief, Appeals Div., Verrier, Jo-Ann M. Phila- delphia, for appellee. NIX, C.J., LARSEN,
Before FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and JJ.