Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant City of Allentown (City) contracted with appellee A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. (ASE), to construct a new public road. After arsenic-contaminated soil was discovered at the worksite, the City suspended work on the project. Following testing, it was determined construction could resume if precautions were taken. Accordingly, the City instructed ASE to obtain revised permits and proceed with the project. However, the existing contract did not include terms regarding the potential for contaminated soil, despite the fact the City was aware there might be contamination prior to entering into the contract, and ASE declined to proceed, explaining it would incur substantial additional costs due to the contaminated soil. The parties made several attempts to reach an agreement in which ASE would continue the construction, but to no avail. Consequently, ASE sued the City to recover its losses on the project, alleged breach of contract, and sought compensation under theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, as well as interest and a statutory penalty and fee award for violations of the prompt pay provisions of the Procurement Code. After a trial, a jury found the City breached its contract with ASE and also withheld payments in bad faith. In this discretionary appeal, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether an award of a statutory penalty and attorney fees under the prompt payment provisions of the Commonwealth’s Procurement Code was mandatory upon a finding of bad faith, irrespective of the statute’s permissive phrasing. The Court held such an award was not mandatory, and therefore reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "A. Scott Enterprises v. City of Allentown" on Justia Law

At issue in this case were the attorney's fees earned in a wrongful death civil litigation settlement, and two law firms' dispute over who was entitled to how much. Richard Eazor was killed and Lynn Sharp was injured in a single automobile accident in Clearfield County. Eazor’s estate and Sharp sued each other, with Sharp contending that Eazor drove the vehicle when the accident occurred and Eazor’s estate alleging that Sharp was the driver. Progressive Insurance Company, the liability carrier for Sharp, retained counsel to represent both parties as defendants in the respective actions, while Sentry Insurance, the carrier for Eazor, remained potentially liable for underinsured motorists’ coverage payable to the person deemed to be the passenger in the vehicle. Attorney William Weiler, Jr., entered his appearance on behalf of the Eazor estate. Later that year, Weiler became associated with the law firm of Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C., (“Meyer Darragh”). Attorney Scott Millhouse of Meyer Darragh subsequently became primarily responsible for the case and drafted a proposed settlement agreement, which was sent to all counsel, but was never signed. Shortly thereafter, Weiler resigned from Meyer Darragh. Upon his departure, he agreed that Meyer Darragh would receive two-thirds of the attorney’s fees arising from the Eazor estate litigation, and that he would retain one-third of the fees. Weiler subsequently became affiliated with the law firm of Malone Middleman, P.C. (“Malone Middleman”). The Eazor estate decided to discharge Meyer Darragh and seek representation from Weiler and Malone Middleman. Malone Middleman took over the case and entered into a contingency fee agreement with the estate, providing that the firm would represent the estate in exchange for one-third of the proceeds of any settlement reached before suit was filed. The contingent fee agreement did not address the payment of attorney’s fees to Meyer Darragh. Further, Malone Middleman did not agree in writing or otherwise to protect the fee purportedly earned by Meyer Darragh. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to examine the propriety of the Superior Court’s holding that a Meyer Darragh was entitled to breach of contract damages against Malone Middleman. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the specific facts presented here, any recovery that may have been due to Meyer Darragh would lie in quantum meruit, and not breach of contract. As such, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Malone Middleman, P.C." on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review was whether the Superior Court properly applied the doctrine of estoppel by deed to conclude that an oil and gas lease between Appellee, Anadarko E. & P. Co., L.P. and Appellants, Leo and Sandra Shedden, covered the oil and gas rights to 100% of the property identified in the lease, notwithstanding the fact that, unbeknownst to them, Appellants owned only a one-half interest in the oil and gas rights to the property at the time the lease was executed, and, consequently, received a bonus payment only for the oil and gas rights they actually owned. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court properly affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Anadarko based on estoppel by deed. View "Shedden v. Anadarko E&P Co." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review centered on review of a Commonwealth Court order Court interpreting a provision of a consent decree, negotiated by the Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania ("OAG") and approved by the Commonwealth Court, between Appellant UPMC, a nonprofit health care corporation, and Appellee Highmark, a nonprofit medical insurance corporation, which established the obligations of both parties with respect to certain health care plans serving vulnerable populations. Specifically, the Court considered whether the Commonwealth Court erroneously interpreted this "vulnerable populations" provision as creating a contractual obligation for UPMC to treat all participants in Highmark’s "Medicare Advantage Plans" (for which Highmark and UPMC currently have provider contracts which UPMC has indicated it will terminate) as "in-network" for purposes of determining the rates it is permitted to charge these individuals for physician, hospital, and other medical services during the duration of the consent decree. After careful review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s finding that the "vulnerable populations" clause of the consent decree required UPMC to "be in a contract" with Highmark for the duration of the consent decree, and, thus, that UPMC physicians, hospitals, and other services shall be treated as "in-network" for participants in Highmark Medicare Advantage plans which were subject to provider contracts between Highmark and UPMC set to be terminated by UPMC on December 31, 2015. The Court also affirmed the portion of the Commonwealth Court’s order requiring judicial approval for any further changes in business relationships between these parties which were governed by the consent decree, but quashed as not yet ripe for review the portion of the order which directed the OAG to file a request for supplemental relief to effectuate compliance with the consent decree. View "Pennsylvania v. UPMC" on Justia Law

Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc. hired Appellee David Socko in March 2007 as a salesperson. Socko executed a two-year employment contract containing a covenant not to compete. In February 2009, Socko resigned from his employment with Mid-Atlantic, but the company rehired him four months later, in June 2009. At his time of rehire, Socko signed a new employment agreement containing another two-year covenant not to compete. While still employed by Mid-Atlantic, in 2010, Socko signed a third, more restrictive “Non-Competition Agreement,” which, by its terms, superseded all prior agreements. Pursuant to the Agreement (at issue in this appeal), Socko was not permitted to compete with Mid-Atlantic for two years after the termination of his employment in any of the locations Mid-Atlantic did business: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Agreement also expressly provided for the application of Pennsylvania law, and stated that the parties intended to be “legally bound.” The issue this case presented for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s review was one of first impression: whether the enforcement of an employment agreement containing a restrictive covenant not to compete, entered into after the commencement of employment, could be challenged by an employee for a lack of consideration, where the agreement, by its express terms, stated that the parties “intend to be legally bound,” which language implicated the insulating effect of the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”). After review, the Supreme Court concluded that an employee was not precluded from challenging such an agreement executed pursuant to the UWOA. View "Socko. v. Mid-Atantic Systems of CPA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Pennsylvania law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In August 2007, Appellee Wayne Harrison entered into a lease with Appellant Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, per which Cabot obtained the exclusive right to explore oil-and-gas resources on Harrison's property. In exchange, the company agreed to pay an initial bonus plus a one-eighth royalty on oil or gas successfully produced from the land. Approximately halfway through the primary lease term, Harrison and his wife commenced a civil action against Cabot in a federal district court, seeking a declaration that the lease was invalid. The Harrisons alleged the company had fraudulently induced Mr. Harrison to enter into the lease via an agent's representation that Mr. Harrison would never receive any more than $100 per acre as a threshold bonus payment from a gas producing company. The Harrisons learned of other landowner-lessors receiving higher payments. The Pennsylvania Court accepted certification from the Third Circuit to address whether the primary term of an oil-and-gas lease should have been equitably extended by the courts, where the lessor pursued an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the validity of the lease. In its counterclaim, Cabot sought a declaratory judgment that, in the event the Harrisons' suit failed, the primary term of the lease would be equitably tolled during the period of time during which the suit was pending, and, concomitantly, the lease would be extended for an equivalent period of time beyond what was provided by its actual terms. The district court awarded summary judgment in Cabot's favor on the suit to invalidate the lease. The court, however, resolved the counterclaim in the Harrisons' favor, concluding that Pennsylvania law does not provide for equitable extensions of oil and gas leases under the circumstances. Cabot appealed, arguing that it would be deprived of the full benefit of the bargained-for terms of its contract with the Harrisons by their "meritless lease challenges." Cabot contended Pennsylvania law provided that a party repudiates a contract, and thus effectuates an essential breach, when he makes an unequivocal statement that he will not perform in accordance with his agreement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with Cabot's contention, holding that the Harrisons' lease challenge was not an anticipatory breach of the lease. "Our reluctance, in this respect, is bolstered by the Harrisons' observation that oil-and-gas-producing companies are free to proceed according to their own devices to negotiate express tolling provisions for inclusion in their leases. [. . .] Certainly, in light of the voluminous decisional law, such companies are on sufficient notice of the prospect for validity challenges to warrant their consideration of such protective measures. [ . . .] Our determination is only that, consistent with the prevailing substantive law of this Commonwealth, the mere pursuit of declaratory relief challenging the validity of a lease does not amount to such." View "Harrison v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp." on Justia Law

Appellee signed a contract in December 2010, to rent a car from Appellant Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia, LLC (“Enterprise”). She agreed in the contract that she would pay for repairs for any damage the car incurred during the rental period, along with any administrative, loss-of-use, and diminishment-in-value fees. The contract set forth formulas for calculating the loss-of-use and diminishment-in-value fees. It also contained a power-of-attorney clause allowing Enterprise to request payment for any unpaid “claims, damages, liabilities, or rental charges” directly from Appellee’s insurance carrier or credit card company. When Appellee returned the car following the rental, an Enterprise employee informed her that she was responsible for a scratch on the car. Enterprise later sent Appellee a letter with an estimate for repairs and an invoice for administrative, loss-of-use, and diminishment-of-value fees, for a total of $840.42. Appellee, represented by counsel, sued Enterprise, filing a six-count complaint that included a claim for damages under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law's ("UTPCPL) “catchall” provision. Appellee’s complaint alleged that Enterprise had engaged in deceptive acts and had made misrepresentations by charging her unconscionable fees bearing no reasonable relationship to the costs of repairing the alleged damage to the car. The Superior Court reversed as to Appellee’s UTPCPL claim, concluding that Appellee had sufficiently pled an “ascertainable loss.” The court considered Enterprise’s alleged threats to collect the $840.42 from Appellee’s auto insurance carrier and her credit card issuer, and Appellee’s hiring counsel to file suit to halt Enterprise’s collection efforts, to be sufficient to satisfy the “ascertainable loss” requirement. The court also pointed out that Enterprise had stipulated that it would cease its collection efforts only if the trial court granted its motion. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Enterprise argued that merely retaining an attorney to commence suit cannot satisfy the UTPCPL’s “ascertainable loss” element. The Supreme Court concluded that Appellee’s construction of the “ascertainable loss” element as including attorney fees was unreasonable, and contradicted by the plain language of the statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed. View "Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co of Phila." on Justia Law

In this matter, Appellants John and Kathy St. John challenged the Superior Court’s decision to affirm a declaratory judgment order finding Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (“Penn National”) liable for a judgment against its insured LPH Plumbing and Heating under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy in effect from July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004. The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether, under the facts of this case and the policy language at issue, Penn National was instead liable for the judgment against its insured under a separate policy of CGL insurance as well as a companion umbrella policy in effect from July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2006. Furthermore, the Court also considered whether the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance coverage (adopted by the Supreme Court in "J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.," 626 A.2d 502 (Pa. 1993)), within the context of asbestos bodily injury claims applied in this case, where property damage was continuous and progressive, to trigger coverage under all policies in effect from exposure to the harmful condition to manifestation of the injury. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s decision finding that coverage was triggered under the policy in effect from July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2004, when property damage became reasonably apparent, and declining to apply the multiple trigger theory of liability insurance coverage. View "PA Natl Mut Casualty v. St. John" on Justia Law

In 2007, Jared Wolfe was injured when his vehicle was hit from behind by an automobile driven by Karl Zierle. Wolfe attributed blame to Zierle and demanded $25,000 from Zierle’s insurer carrier, Appellant Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, equating to half the liability limits under the applicable policy. Allstate counteroffered $1,200, which Wolfe refused. Wolfe then instituted a personal injury action against Zierle seeking compensatory damages grounded in negligence. Allstate assumed Zierle’s defense while maintaining its additional right, under the policy, to effectuate a settlement. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted certification from a federal appeals court to clarify whether, under Pennsylvania law, an insured may assign the right to recover damages from his insurance company deriving from the insurer’s bad faith toward the insured. The Court concluded that the entitlement to assert damages under Pennsylvania law may be assigned by an insured to an injured plaintiff and judgment creditor such as Wolfe. Having answered the certified question, the Court returned the matter to the federal court. View "Allstate Prop & Casualty Ins Co. v. Wolfe" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, the issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether a negligence claim brought against an insurer by its insureds for alleged statements made by the insurer’s adjuster and an engineer the insurer had retained (that mold the insureds discovered while performing home renovations was harmless and that they should continue their renovations) was barred by the “gist of the action” doctrine on the grounds that the true gist or gravamen of the action was an alleged breach of the insurance contract (their homeowners’ policy); and (2) whether the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 1042.1 and 1042.3 required the insureds to obtain a certificate of merit in order for them to proceed with their negligence suit against the professional engineer employed by the insurer to evaluate the mold. After careful review, the Supreme Court held that the insureds’ negligence claim was not barred by the gist of the action doctrine, as the claim was based on an alleged breach of a social duty imposed by the law of torts, and not a breach of a duty created by the underlying contract of insurance. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the insureds were not required to obtain a certificate of merit in order to proceed with their negligence suit against the professional engineer, since they were not patients or clients of the engineering company which employed him. Consequently, the Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bruno v. Erie Insurance" on Justia Law