*1 not, however, typical vari- This was FIRE AND CASUALTY FARM case, STATE present In the
ance situation. COMPANY, Appellant judg- for a response Appellee’s motion prosecutor did not acquittal, ment of v. complaint to conform seek to amend the CRALEY, the Es Admr. of Randall P. rather, contend- proofs; the trial she Craley, Jayne Randall Ann M. tate of complaint date in the ed that Craley, P. Parent Guardian a defect existed the Com- correct but Minor, Craley, Randall A Keith P. Indeed, proof. the Common- monwealth’s Right Craley, and Glo in His Own P. concerned the date of proofs wealth’s Lawrence Cra ria M. W. from that as- only varied offense Wife, Appellees. ley, Husband and also complaint, in the were serted de- internally inconsistent to a substantial Superior Pennsylvania. prosecutor therefore took gree. 3,May 2001. Argued step requesting leave to very unusual or, in testimony the notes of amend 26, Sept. Filed alternative, re-call reopen the case and rectify case.
the witnesses to her
Although agree I with the Common- the com-
wealth that the variance between proofs inconsistency in
plaint and and the proofs implicate
the trial did not factual charged, given of the offenses
element involved, I discrepancies
character of the municipal
support court’s conclusion
that it did concern a requirement proof. supra note
Commonwealth’s See unique presented,
In the circumstances
therefore, municipal and where the court ruling its of the sufficien-
couched terms evidence, join I am
cy of the able to jeopar-
majority’s enforcing double
dy bar. 528, 1993). Evans, discrepancy has involved Where the v. 205 Conn. accord State trial, (1987) proven at it the offense as (plurality opinion) an element of A.2d See, e.g., as factual. United pre been treated (holding jeopardy double does not has Hunt, (10th Cir. appealing States v. 212 F.3d prosecution a dis clude the 2000) (holding jeopardy barred that double upon of the informa based the failure missal offense); al government appeal the indictment where specify date of the tion to mail, proof (Del.1991); estab leged from the Pusey, ri theft 36-37 Flo theft). James, (Fla.App. only a lished 626 So.2d 261-62 da *2 Sachs, Philadelphia,
Teresa for appel- F. lant. Bausher, Reading, ap-
Daniel E.P. pellees. SOLE,
Before: DEL President Judge, J., McEWEN, CAVANAUGH, President Emeritus, JOHNSON, JOYCE, Judge STEVENS, MUSMANNO, LALLY- GREEN, TODD, JJ. and JOYCE, J. action, 1 In this
Appellant, and Casualty Farm Fire State (State Farm)1 Company appeals from the trial court entered follow- ing the court’s decision and verdict declar- ing responsibility Farm has a pay the pur- uninsured motorists benefits policy purchased by suant to an insurance (Randall).2 Appellee, Craley Randall P. below, For the set forth we reasons will untimely. perti- quash appeal as history facts procedural nent and of this case are as follows: decedent, 1. July Jay- On (Jayneann), neann Craley killed Jimmy Sport when S15 the 1988 GMC Wagon (Sport Wagon) she was mother-in-law, driving, in which her (Mrs. Craley), Gloria and her Craley M. (Keith), son, Craley minor P. were Keith passengers, with another vehicle collided McFadden, being Terry J. driven who was uninsured.
2. and Keith also sus- Mrs. multiple injuries tained result of the collision. court, we company, the trial will refer insurance Prudential Consistent with Another Company, Casualty Company to State Fire and Farm party Randall; a related case at court Farm; was a the trial Craley as Randall P. However, level. not involved Appellees collectively, Craleys. as the appeal. the instant incident, available under each Jay- otherwise At the time of this
B. husband, P. onto the other’s State policy and her Randall Cra- neann (Randall), Keith, Craley, and Mrs. ley policy: her father-in- Craley, W. Lawrence waiver, reject- I am By signing this *3 (Mr. in Craley), together all lived
law motor- limits of uninsured ing stacked Dogwood at 106 the same household my- policy under the for coverage ist Narvon, Drive, Pennsylvania. my household and members self in Sport Wagon registered 4. The coverage the limits of under which and was insured under Jayneann’s name sum of limits would be the available Farm, by No. S56- policy issued under motor vehicle insured for each 1104-C17-38A. cover- the limits of policy. Instead operator Jayneann regular 5. was the purchasing I shall be age that am Sport Wagon. in the to the limits stated reduced incident, Randall At the time of this 6. knowingly voluntarily policy. I pickup Mazda truck which owned a 1986 coverage. limits of reject the stacked in and was was not involved the collision my premium will be I understand separate poli- insurance insured under reject coverage. if I reduced Farm, cy issued No. S56-1103- re- Jayneann and Randall 13. Both C17-38. premiums in the ceived a reduction incident, 7. At the time of this Mr. and Farm paid of them to State which each Craley Dodge owned a 1990 Cara- Mrs. their policy exchange for each van which was likewise not involved to stack uninsured right waivers of their the collision and was insured under a coverage. benefits motorist Prudential, policy issued No. 282A- also con- policy Each State Farm 14. 670586. following “household exclusion” tains the Jayneann’s Sport Wagon 8. was not clause: on either listed as insured vehicle FOR THERE IS NO COVERAGE Farm Mr. [pjolicy Randall’s State or on TO AN IN- INJURY BODILY Craley’s policy. and Mrs. U- SURED UNDER COVERAGE 3: Craley 10. Mrs. was neither a “named A MO- 1. WHILE OCCUPYING operator” nor a listed insured” BY OWNED TOR VEHICLE Sport Wagon which was insured under ANY SPOUSE OR YOUR YOU Jayneann’s Farm IF IT IS NOT IN- RELATIVE poli- Farm 11. Each of the two State FOR THIS COVERAGE SURED provides for uninsured motorist cies POLICY; ... THIS UNDER in the maximum coverage benefits “relative”, as set forth 15. The term $15,000.00 per person amount clause is de- this “household exclusion” $30,000.00per accident. policy Farm in each State fined poli- 12. Each of the two State spouse by you your related to “person following “waiver” cies contains the blood, who lives marriage adoption Randall entitled signed by Jayneann and you”. Motor- “Rejection of Uninsured Stacked Benefits”, that each of indicating ist 12, 1993 colli- Following July 23. right had to “stack”
them waived sion, Jayneann M. the estate of coverage motorist benefits uninsured estate), mately adopted. sepa- also (Jayneann’s Keith and Mrs. Cra- ley rately proposed filed claims for uninsured motorist submitted conclusions of thereof, and briefs Jayneann’s support outlining benefits under State Farm law respective positions. .... their On December policy, No. S56-1104-C17-38A 22, 1998, its court issued decision Craley’s Both Mrs. Keith[’s] Thereafter, both State and verdict. claims were based on their status as Craleys and the filed motions. living “resident relatives” the same April On the court issued an household.” denying State Farm’s motion and policy paid While Craleys. filed granting motion $30,000.00 limits of in uninsured motor- also The court amended the verdict Jayneann’s ist benefits available under *4 by stipulated par- reflect the amount the policy, No. S56-1104-C17- ties, ie., $15,000.00 person per or 38A, coverage it denied under Randall’s $30,000.00per request At the of accident. policy, Farm No. State S56-1103-C17- the Craleys, amended verdict was re- estate, Jayneann’s Keith and Mrs. May a judgment duced to on 2000. the basis Craley, on of Randall’s waiver appeal by This State followed. right of his to stack motorist uninsured coverage “household ex- benefits and the for questions presented 3 The our re- set at Find- clause forth herein clusion” (1) are as trial view follows: Whether the Fact # 14. ing of committed of law refus- court an error
ing, public grounds, enforce policy clause contained the “household exclusion” wrongful 27. The value (2) in the policy; Whether by Jayneann’s claim es- death/survival trial court committed an error law possible all tate exceeds ... uninsured Craley’s refusing to enforce Randall waiv- coverage motorist benefits limits under stacking er of motorist cover- uninsured polic[y]. ... the State Farm ... (3) court the trial com- age; Whether Craley’s The value of claim 28. Mrs. in converting mitted an error law injuries pos- personal her all for exceeds non-stacking coverage uninsured motorist ... benefits sible uninsured motorist by stacking into purchased Randall coverage limits ... under (State See Brief for coverage. Appellant policfy]. Farm ... Farm), at 5.4 29. The value of Keith’s claim for his $40,000.00. injuries is personal ¶ 4 addressing questions Before Fact, Court Opinion, Findings Trial review, for our threshold presented 12/22/1998,at 3-9.3 matter, we whether this must determine impli as it parties stipulated appeal properly 2 The to the above is before us fact, jurisdictional ulti- We de findings of which the trial court cates matters.5 must Findings appeal portions appeal, 30-day period 3. for must be The omitted Fact Casually construed; relate to Prudential strictly untimely divests appeal. Company party which is not a to this Valley Superior jurisdiction. Inc., Rib-It/K.P., Forge Center Associates questions rephrased presented 4. We (Pa.Super.1997); Brown clarity purposes. Brown, (1994)(generally, untimely divests jurisdiction Superior Court without The Superior jurisdiction). Court of timely to excuse failure to notice of file negative timely may if the instant was be either affirmative termine effect, pursuant filed to Pa.R.A.P. 903.6 form and and such declarations of a final shall have the force and effect 5 This matter initiated was or decree. Farm as a seeking responsibility a declaration of its § 42 Pa.C.S. provide un- coverage uninsured motorist undisputed that the instant 7 It is parties stipu- der Randall’s The declaratory judg case was initiated as underlying agreed lated to the facts and we Against background, ment action. the matter could be decided whether the trial court’s must determine stipulated trial court on the basis decision and verdict dated December testimony. without facts court declared issued a and a decision verdict on Decem- parties. rights of 22, 1998, declaring ber that State Farm ¶ 8 The court’s decision and verdict con- owed uninsured motorist benefits under as a matter of law that the house- cluded policy
Randall’s
and that
the household
hold vehicle
contained
exclusion
policy
exclusion clause contained in the
policy
Randall’s
issued
State Farm was
contrary
public policy.
*5
against public policy.
unenforceable as
Following
then filed
motions.
The court also concluded that the waiver of
motions,
disposition
court’s
of these
stacking provision signed by Randall was
appealed
to
ques-
this Court. The
applicable
“inter-policy” stacking.
not
to
light
tion then becomes whether in
The court then determined that each of the
Act,
Declaratory Judgment
42 Pa.C.S.
$30,000.00
three claimants was entitled to
7532;
§
Nationwide Mutual
Insurance
pursuant
in uninsured motorist benefits
to
Wickett,
595,
Co. v.
563 Pa.
Id. ¶ Gisler, Wickett, and su- 18 Based on ¶ Wickett, supra, 16 Also consistent with regardless it that that is clear pra, panel is a recent decision a of this used, trial court to describe its term the in and Casual in a order Gisler, ty Insurance Co. (such decision, verdict, a decree nisi Gisler, appellee, In a (Pa.Super.2000). the etc.), affirmatively neg- or if such an order officer, in police injured was an automobile parties, the it rights declared the of atively patrol car. operating accident while his immediately appealable. is final and against The officer then made a claim his Craleys the Both Farm and under seeking automobile insurer benefits and from distinguish his to Wickett Gisler try The au- underinsured motorist grounds.7 any the on to believe that the procedural instant case reason General the argues that unlike instant Assembly such a restriction. intended case, orders in the involved Wickett sus- Conversely, exemption there no from preliminary objections tained the nature application the of the statute for cases demurrer, a while of the order involved request involving declaratory for relief Gisler was in the nature of a decree nisi. entry monetary part and of a the award parties argue The that and Wickett Gisler Assembly did of the verdict. The General solely declaratory involved relief while the exemption. such an Neither create request instant involves case both shall we. declaratory relief and the a mone- ¶22 reject sug Similarly, we the tary part of award as the verdict. that gestion argument the instant and/or parties attempt 20 The to also distin- exempt case from the should be dictates guish and from the instant Wickett Gisler Act simply the be case, that noting case in the instant non-jury proceeded upon it as a trial cause outset, from the the trial court stated that stipulated facts pursuant Pa.R.C.P. proceedings being pur- the were conducted 1038.1, 1038,227.1 and there seq. *8 regard- that address Gisler’s conclusion application authority
no the restricts description of its less the trial court’s Declaratory of the Aet to Judgment cases action, if declaratory in a objections involving preliminary and/or affirmatively it or the negatively an declares involving entry cases decree nisi. parties, it is a final and rights restrict the of the Wickett and Gisler do not stat- appealable agree in order. As we with Gis- ute such a manner. Neither is there cannot, jurisdiction parties urged by agreement, on 7. We the have confer note that us the than resolve this on merits rather this Court. However, procedural grounds. parties on the ler, in- recognize apparent the consequence it of little that the 26 We also we find in this consistency between our conclusion trial court the case at bar issued by panel case and the decision rendered “decision” and “verdict” on December Kramer, opposed “judg- to an “order” or this in Miller which ment.” post-trial motions must be filed stated that ¶ 24 In arriving at our conclusion this nisi in a following a decree case, cognizant we are of the fact that our stipulated facts in a de- non-jury trial on specifically courts have not addressed the claratory judgment disagree- action. Our 1038.1, 1038, interplay between Pa.R.C.P. panel stems from the ment with the Miller Declaratory 227.1 seq. Judg- et apply that it not consider or fact did Act, especially regard ment to the panel Act. did Declaratory Judgment post- finality of orders and whether or not decree at issue in not consider whether the permitted required. trial motions or are affirmatively negatively that case or de- standpoint, may unfair From this it seem parties. re- rights clared the We penalize adhering only apparent relying solve conflict this governing the rules cases submitted on Wickett, Supreme Court decision stipulated facts and the rules governing declaratory judg- in a which stated that Also, non-jury trials. the fact action, ment a trial court order or decision erroneously accepted trial court and ruled negatively or declares parties’ post although on the trial motions is final and imme- rights jurisdiction it lacked the to do so lends diately appealable. argument. credence to the unfairness However, reviewing the the in- on our conclusion that merits of Based of De- despite stant the untimeliness trial court’s “decision” and “verdict” ap- final and creating recog- would be tantamount to cember constituted order, nizing exception pealable we need not review stipu- appeal, Act in cases the instant which was submitted on merits of exception untimely May lated facts—an not authorized filed on 2000. Accord- untime- ingly, quash statute or case law. we will ly- It noteworthy although is also ¶ Appeal quashed. Wickett and Gisler were decided while the appeal, instant case was pending on these SOLE, Judge, DEL files President law nor cases did create new did Dissenting Opinion. adopt interpretations existing novel of an ¶ McEWEN, Judge Emeri- President applied express statute: both cases tus, Opin- Concurring Dissenting files language MUSMANNO, joins. J. ion which Act, namely, that when a trial court order ¶31 MUSMANNO, Concurring J. files affirma- judgment action TODD, Dissenting Opinion in which J. tively declares the joins. appealable parties, it is a final and such, to con- quite proper order. As it is SOLE, Judge, DEL President reviewing sider these two recent cases Dissenting. Moreover, judice. gave the case sub we *9 ¶ two respectfully 1 I must dissent for parties opportunity the to address the First, the agree I present to reasons. while applicability of these cases the Insurance briefs, Majority that General Accident they did. case letter 790 Allen, 693, 547 Pa. 692 reach the merits of the matter us. Co. America before (1997),
A.2d and parties 1089 Nationwide Mutual and trial court relied on Miller Wickett, 595, 563 Insurance Co. v. 763 procedure they dictate followed. (2000), appearing A.2d can be read as particularly justified This reliance was be- the normal and eliminate time-honored cause, above, explained both General post-trial procedural involving prac- rules ap- Accident did not and Wickett involve tice, particularly light of the statements peals following a trial. Opinion Dissenting
made in the of Mr. ¶ appropriate it would be Accordingly, 819, at I Saylor Justice Wickett do in this to reach the instance merits conclude do here. matter us. before point 2 I out that neither hasten nor a General Accident Wickett involved McEWEN, Emeritus, Judge President Rather, trial. General Accident dealt with Concurring Dissenting. and following for determinations cross-motions 12, 1993, July 1 As of a a result auto- rul- summary judgment and Wickett with caused the mobile accident which death of objections. ings preliminary Thus I seriously injured Jayne Craley and her son that, this, in a case suggest would such as mother-in-law, her Farm8 and State filed post-trial prac- the normal following trial declaratory judgment the instant action on tice in civil involved cases has not been September at No. “for 97-9019 eliminated. purpose determining question 3 I do not believe controversy actual between requires Act elimination of (paragraph forth of declarato- set below” practice. In post-trial traditional complaint). ry action Pennsylvania system, court matters in- ¶ 2 alleged paragraph at are, procedure con- volving the rules A. complaint, “Jayne Craley of its and stitution, delegated judiciary under purchased non-stacking Russell procedure set Article 5. forth which uninsured underinsured cov- motorist steps necessary directs the erages and executed valid waivers of been, final judgment has not could it nor ‘stacking’ paragraph At coverages.” be, by statute. abrogated Requiring alleged: trial, filing motions following applicable Under the Fire not, my judgment, does impinge on Company policies of insur- Casualty Act. I believe ance, in particular endorsement procedures following trials in actions civil policies, de- applicable both 6997AG greatest should consistent to the extent be “stacking” precluded fendants are possible, eliminating may traps thus coverage motorist under uninsured prevent being their issues from decided on policy providing the second household merits. coverage. motorist uninsured ¶4 dissenting reason for My second that on that, 3 The docket reflects October Majority while the directs the over- Kramer, any to the absence factual due ruling of Miller v. disputes, stipula- submitted position consis- A.2d may be holding, tent fairness tion “that action decided requires [the] with its we formally ion case consolidated with 8. Prudential but not Co., declaratory judgment at action filed filed a compan- Farm. No. 97-8741 which was treated as a
791
Wickett,
595,
Pa.
joint stipulation an or- states that simply 7532 Section law. The trial proposed and conclusions of action der 22, court filed a decision on December -affirmatively that either 1998, provided that “Randall P. Cra and duties declares ley capacity as administrator his a final order. As the parties constitutes parent Jayne Craley Ann and as exactly Estate of explains, that is discussion above Craley 9, 1996, Keith P. guardian and natural September trial court’s what the and M. are entitled to recov Therefore, Gloria the trial court’s orders did. following er the uninsured motorist bene pursuant final orders orders constituted Casualty Farm Fire and 341(b)(2), fits from State and the to Pa.R.A.P. pursu Company $90,000.00.” ruling, This jurisdiction to recon- court was without — Supreme ant to well-settled law of our thirty days than after sider them more final, Court, order. appealable § was a 42 entry. Pa.C.S. 5505. their See Farm9, requesting rather than re Company Insurance Nationwide Mutual and of an order vacat consideration Wickett, 604, at at 763 A.2d supra 22, 1998, pend ing the order of December Supreme the decision of the Nor was ing the court on its motion for expression of a new Court Wickett reconsideration, post-trial filed motions on interpretation 7532 of the Judi of Section 4, January appellees post- 1999. The filed e.g.: Accident In cial Code. See General 12, January trial motions on 1999. Due to Allen, America v. Company surance days, order of passage 30 De supra; 22, 1998, January cember became final on Gisler, 1111, A.2d 764 Insurance Co. - 21, 1999. See: General Accident Co. denied, (Pa.Super.2000), appeal 1113 Allen, 693, 706-707, America v. 547 Pa. 548, LEXIS, , A.2d 2001 Pa. Pa. 782 — (1997). 1089, Fifteen 692 A.2d 1095 (Pa. 24, 2001); Redevelopment July 1564 thereafter, by April months order dated County v. Interna Authority Cambria 26, 2000, post-trial motions filed Co., 374, Pa.Super. tional Insurance appellees’ Farm were denied (1996)(en banc), 581, appeal granted, motions were as a re (1997); denied, A.2d 787 Pa. sult of which the verdict was amended Insurance Warner v. Continental/CNA Farm, $90,000 $30,0000. from A.2d Companies, 455 25, 2000, May praecipe denied, filed a to enter 177, 179(1996), and a notice of to this (1997). Court. procedure usual here, where, are the facts majori- judgments, 4 As the learned author of the to file colleagues dispute, is for ty opinion my distinguished summary judgment Supreme cross motions for majority opined, have our directly taken for the to be in Nationwide Mutual on December post-trial motions on 97-8741 9. Prudential also filed at January to the order entered No.
792
days
of a final
thirty
within
of
summary judgment.
granting
the order
See,
Sey
v.
e.g.: Acceptance Insurance Co.
order.
bert,
(Pa.Super.2000); Stand
firmed,
Pa.
¶ un- declaratory judgment 9 The rendered Judge we find that Reed Since Farm Mutual derlying Baughman v. State trial, and State a decision after because Co., Automobile Insurance mo- post-trial filed its properly (1995), was commenced receiving notice days within ten tions a bench by State Farm and conducted as decision, the instant quash we trial, Farm’s following the denial of State may have appeal so that the trial court At the summary judgment. motion for opportunity any to correct er- the first trial, conclusion of the bench the court adjudi- it made in its may rors that have supporting opin- order and entered “[an] cation. ion, poli- declaring that the insured’s UIM (cita- at Baughman, supra, 656 A.2d limits cy applicable under the State omitted). tions $100,000. policy are Notice of the order Baughman fleeting is devia- 10 Nor 16th, May May
was mailed on 1994. On tion, for, recounted, our as earlier Court post-trial State Farm filed a motion for finality appears to have overlooked 2nd, relief. before resolution On June declaratory judgment in cases an order of motions, Farm’s State disposition declaratory where the order of appeal.” filing Farm filed a notice of The in response was entered to a motion for days of the notice of within 30 summary judgment, as well as where was, course, disposition en- declaratory order of procedure explained by the correct as our response tered submission Allen, Supreme supra, Court and Wick- by the stipulated facts. That the effort ett, was, well, prudent supra as —and declarations of the law could bar secure course, if counsel was uncertain as to the produce uncertainty uniquely ano- such appealability May of the order of malous, discomforting. as well See: Comments to Pa.R.A.P. 1701. This Court, however, quashed appeal, it, therefore, operative 11 As I see
Specifically,
testimony,
based on the
factors are:
Judge Reed found that the Insured did
Assembly
Supreme
and our
General
not authorize her husband to reduce her
de-
have mandated that orders
Court
coverage
UIM
when the husband re-
claring rights and duties
coverage. Judge
duced his UIM
Reed
immediately ap-
judgment actions are
found that the Insured did not rati-
also
pealable.
fy or assent to a reduction in her UIM
correctly complies
majority quite
any
coverage at
later date. Based on
that mandate.
findings,
Reed concluded
Judge
these
compliance by
That
this Court with
that, pursuant
to section 1734
inflicts
Supreme
mandate of the
Responsibility
Motor
Financial
Vehicle
upon appellees
consequences
adverse
Law,
$100,000 in
the Insured had
UIM
and their counsel.
coverage
under the State Farm
such
Appellee
find that
and their counsel suffer
foregoing,
Because of the
we
consequences
adverse
because
were
Judge Reed rendered a verdict or deci-
sion,
by certain of the decisions of
Accordingly,
beguiled
final judgment.
not a
post-
filing
Farm was correct
Court.
Farm filed this case as
de
for correction
unfairness cries
Such
However,
action.
claratory judgment
adjustment
may
be available
and such
case,
upon
based
parties
that the
submitted this
the law. I am of the mind
under
facts, for
trial court’s deter
stipulated
afforded
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has
Thus,
proce
faced a
adjustment in its mination.
just such an avenue for
—
conundrum. Under the
Fry,
dural
decision Commonwealth
Act,
-,
any order that declares the
where the court
has the
and duties of
and remanded to this Court
reversed
*13
a final
by
force and effect of
quashed
had been
this
appeal which
§
an
42 Pa.C.S.A.
7532. Such
there relied
decree.
untimely.
The Court
Pa.
immediately appealable.
Corp. v. Board
order
upon Union Electric
341(b). However,
Assessment,
in a case submit
746 R.A.P.
560 Pa.
facts,
parties must
stipulated
proposition that a
ted on
A.2d 581
for the
their
preserve
motions to
granted
post-trial
file
pro
nunc
tunc
should be
appellate review. See Pa.R.C.P.
comply with the timeli
claims for
when the failure to
practice
proce
that the
and
(stating
a
1038.1
by
was caused
mis
requirement
ness
stipulated
of a case submitted
by
body
an
of the
dure
statement
administrative
in accordance with the rules
facts shall be
filing
appeal.
for
an
Common
deadline
jury);
a
Pa.
a trial without
Surely,
governing
that ratio
Fry, supra.
wealth v.
post-
(requiring
filing
227.1
to the confusion R.C.P.
applicable
nale is no less
appel
preserve
claims for
judicial uncertainty.
motions
caused
review).
late
Thus,
firmly join
I
although
matter, in
that the
my colleagues
complicating
decision of
Further
Kramer,
untimely,
Super.
I believe that
424 Pa.
Farm was
Miller
(1993), panel
to allow an
of this Court held
authority
of this Court
A.2d 1033
action,
that,
tunc is now an inherent
pro
nunc
in a
Court,
following
that we
be filed
prerogative
of this
motions must
non-jury
in a
wisely
justly
here exercise
a decree nisi
would
contra Na
authority.
stipulated
trial on
facts. See
Wickett,
563 Pa.
Mut. Ins. Co.
tionwide
¶ MUSMANNO,
joins
J.
the Concur-
(2000) (under
different
McEWEN,
Dissenting Opinion by
ring and
circumstances,
holding that
procedural
Emeritus, and also files a
Judge
President
negatively de
Opinion.
Concurring
Dissenting
constitutes
rights
clared
order);
Property and
final
MUSMANNO, J., Concurring and
Gisler,
applying the then valid case
Court, conflicting procedure. rules of reason, part, I with the agree,
For that Opinion my esteemed col-
Dissenting Sole, and
league, Judge President Del address the merits of the claims
would appeal.
raised State Farm on
¶ TODD, joins Concurring and J. MUSMANNO,
Dissenting Opinion by J. *14 Pennsylvania,
COMMONWEALTH of
Appellee, LOWERY, Appellant.
James Junior Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of
Appellee, Lowery, Appellant.
James Junior
Superior Pennsylvania. July
Submitted
Filed Oct. et Notes (dealing suant to Pa.R.C.P. 1038.1 to. Nothing facts). stipulated cases submitted on The legislative history Act or or its indicates parties point Note Rule also to the exemption. an A careful suggests such 1038.1, refers the reader to Rules interpret cases reading of statute and (governing jury) trial without and inescapable ing the statute leads to seq. post-trial Rule 227.1 (governing et that regardless conclusion whether practice). parties pursuant that argue trial, jury non-jury case involves a or rules, filing post above regardless of whether a case involves testi permitted required in motions is order stipu monial evidence was submitted words, post-trial to obtain In other relief. facts, ac lated since the above rules and notes thereto tion, if an that a trial court issues order non-jury (dealing with trials and cases sub- declares facts) stipulated permit mitted on and re- parties, is final such motions, quire filing immediately appealable. parties permitted argue they were to file required post-trial motions noteworthy It is also their order to obtain relief from the trial court’s at attempts distinguish case bar December 1998 decision verdict. Gisler, fact ignore case, like the just instant Gisler parties’ attempt find the We upon stipulated submitted to the trial court distinguish Wickett and Gisler from ignore or fail to also facts. unpersuasive. instant case to be We find