Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this discretionary appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to address whether the "regular use" exclusion in a personal automobile insurance police was valid to preclude payment of underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) to a police officer injured in the course of employment while operating his police vehicle for which the officer did not have an ability to obtain UIM coverage. Appellant Robert Williams was a Pennsylvania State Trooper seriously injured in an accident involving his police vehicle. At the time of the accident, Appellant maintained a personal automobile insurance policy with Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). He sought to recover UIM benefits from GEICO from the accident, but GEICO denied coverage citing the "regular use" exclusion contained in the policy. The trial court granted GEICO's motion to dismiss, and the Superior Court affirmed in an unpublished memorandum. Appellant argued on appeal that because of the special factual circumstances and challenges he faces as a state trooper, his insurer should have provided him with UIM coverage "despite the unambiguous policy exclusion because Pennsylvania has a strong public policy of protecting police officers and other first responders such that they are entitled to special treatment." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded "Appellant's argument simply fails." The Court held that the trial and superior courts were correct in denying Appellant coverage under his UIM policy, and affirmed their decisions. View "Williams v. Government Employees Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Consolidating several appeals, the Supreme Court addressed the effect of a municipality's financial distress and recovery planning on an arbitration award agreed to pursuant to the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act (Act). For approximately twenty years, the City of Scranton has been designated a distressed municipality under the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act. Pursuant to the Recovery Act, the City has its Commonwealth-mandated financial advisors who assist in creating a financial recovery plan (essentially a budget). In the most recent collective bargaining agreements between the City of Scranton and its Police and Firefighter Unions expired at the close of 2002. Negotiations as to future terms and work conditions for union members resulted in impasses. Accordingly, pursuant to the Act, arbitrators were selected to establish appropriate terms and conditions. Throughout the arbitrations, the City maintained that the arbitrators lacked legal authority to award relief impinging on the City's financial recovery plan. The City attempted to resist paying the ensuing award that resulted from the arbitration. The Commonwealth Court found that it was required to vacate the awards, holding that they did not conform to the City's Recovery Plan and would result in increased financial and operational burdens on an already distressed municipality. The Unions appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court focused on the distinction between the terms "arbitration award" and "arbitration settlement": the City argued that it was not mandated to pay "awards" but "settlements." The Supreme Court found the term "settlement" ambiguous, and the plain meaning could include the "award" given by the arbitrators in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's order that the award negatively impacted the City's Recovery Plan. View "City of Scranton v. Firefighters Local Union" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether an opinion rendered by a medical expert was sufficient to rebut the presumption of disease causation under the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act. Joseph Kriebel worked for the City of Philadelphia as a firefighter from 1974 to 2003. He died in 2004 from liver disease caused by hepatitis C. His widow Appellant Patricia Kriebel, filed a claim petition under the Act in 2005, alleging that her husband contracted hepatitis C in the course of his employment. Appellant sought to raise the presumption of occupational exposure. In support of her claim, Appellant presented the testimony of her husband's treating physician. The City rebutted the presumption of disease causation with testimony of its own medical expert. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that an expert's opinion does not constitute substantial competent evidence where it is based on a series of assumptions that lack the necessary factual predicate. Since the medical opinions in this case were based on unfounded suppositions, they were legally insufficient to overcome the presumption of disease causation. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court that held that the City overcame the presumption with its' medical expert's testimony, and reinstated the order of the superior court which held in favor of Appellant. View "City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd." on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether it was a violation of public policy to exclude from underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) a claim by an individual eligible for workers' compensation benefits. Appellant Frank Heller was severely injured from an automobile accident that happened during the course of his employment as a police officer for Sugarcreek Borough. Workers' Compensation covered his medical expenses and two-thirds of his salary. The Borough paid the remainder of Appellant's salary. Appellant's losses and damages far exceeded the policy limit from the tortfeasor's insurance carrier. Accordingly, Appellant notified his insurer of a potential UIM claim and sought UIM benefits from the Borough pursuant to a policy issued by the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities. Ultimately, Appellant's claim was denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that an exclusion in Appellant's workers' compensation policy violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. The Court reversed the Commonwealth Court which held that the policy considerations favored the insurer: "Invalidating the workers' compensation exclusion would not force [the UIM insurer] to underwrite an unknown risk for which it did not receive compensation. The Borough voluntarily elected to purchase optional UIM coverage. .. [W]e find [Appellant's] assertion that the Borough purchased illusory coverage persuasive… the vast majority of all UIM claims likely will be made by Borough employees who are eligible for workers' compensation. The subject exclusion operates to deny UIM benefits to anyone who is eligible for workers' compensation." View "Heller v. Pa. League of Cities and Municipalities" on Justia Law

Appellants the Piper Group filed a constitutional challenge to a 1996 zoning ordinance enacted by Bedminster Township. In support of this challenge, Piper relied on an opinion from the Supreme Court that had been announced six days earlier pertaining to the same ordinance, "C&M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. Hearing Bd." In "C&M," the Court invalidated the Township’s ordinance because it contained certain requirements that unconstitutionally restricted a landowner’s development rights. Relying heavily on C&M, Piper identified those same constitutional defects and sought permission to develop its land at a significantly higher density than would have been permissible under the invalidated ordinance. The Board of Supervisors, the trial court, and the Commonwealth Court all rejected Piper’s proposed cure to the unconstitutionality and held that Piper could develop its land in accordance with the Township’s alternative amended ordinance which cured the constitutional defects in the 1996 ordinance as identified in C&M and allowed increased development, but not to the extent requested by Piper. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Piper argued that the lower courts improperly denied Piper the full relief it requested. Specifically, Piper argued that the decisions violated the Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) and the “pending ordinance doctrine” as set forth in "Casey v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Warwick Twp.," (328 A.2d 464 (Pa. 1974)) and its progeny. The Court disagreed and therefore affirmed the lower courts' decisions. View "Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp." on Justia Law

Indian Rocks Property Owners Association, Inc. developed rules and regulations that were recorded as protective covenants running with the land in a development in Salem Township, Wayne County. Appellees John and Regina Glatfelter purchased a lot within the Indian Rocks community. John died in 1990 leaving Regina as the sole owner of the lot. The lot sat vacant until 2003 when the Glatfelters' son David began constructing a foundation. The Association initially inspected and approved the excavation, but late that year informed the Glatfelters that the work was substandard and inadequate pursuant to the covenants. The Glatfelters were ordered to cease construction until a new plan was approved. The Glatfelters agreed to stop work until they submitted a new application for construction in conformance with the covenants, but they failed to comply with the agreement. The Association brought suit to enforce the covenants, which the trial court approved and entered into its order. Since that suit, the Commonwealth amended the Construction Code to exempt "recreational cabins" from its requirements. Adopting the Construction Code, the Association passed a resolution refusing to recognize the recreational cabin exemption. When the Glatfelters sought to use the changed Construction Code to their advantage, the Association argued that its refusal to recognize the Code's changed cabin exemption did not apply to the Glatfelters' construction project. The trial court granted the Association's contempt petition against the Glatfelters. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the Glatfelters stipulated that they would comply with the Association's rules prior to the change in the Code. As such, they were bound to the terms of the stipulation when completing their construction project: "the Glatfelters cannot use the recreational cabin exemption as a trump card to bypass the rules and regulations to which they agreed. … Our holding is premised entirely on the Glatfelters' failure to obtain the Association's approval regarding the intended structure." The Court did not address the validity of the Association's resolution refusing the adopt the recreational cabin exemption. View "Indian Rocks Property Owners Assoc. v. Glatfelter" on Justia Law

The State Ethics Commission (Commission) appealed from an order of the Commonwealth Court that reversed the Commission's findings that Appellee Kenneth Kistler had violated two provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (Act). Appellee was a member of the Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit's (CLIU) board of directors from 1998 to 2002. As chairman of the building committee, Appellee was charged with pursuing the board's interests in various construction projects. Appellee also owned two building supply businesses. In late 1999, the board explored the possibility of constructing a garage in which to house its buses. The project's architect contacted Appellee as possible supplier for the project. Subsequently, Appellee resigned from his position with CLIU as a possible conflict-of-interest. At a board meeting, the solicitor for the CLIU opined that Appellee could "properly participate" in construction of the garage, but that he should abstain from any votes relating to that project. More projects were planned, and Appellee's businesses were again considered as suppliers. By this time, Appellee had withdrawn completely from participation with the CLIU's building committee. In 2004, the Commission notified Appellee that he was being investigated for possible violations of the Ethics Act. The Commission thereafter concluded that Appellee unintentionally violated the Act three times. The Commonwealth Court reversed the Commission’s decision. In its interpretation of the Ethics Act, the court found no evidence that Appellee's participation in the building committee's discussions lead to the committee's choosing his private businesses for its building projects. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commonwealth Court correctly interpreted the Ethics Act and affirmed its decision. View "Kistler v. State Ethics Comm'n" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court consolidated four cases to decide whether adopted children whose adoptions were procured through a state-licensed private agency in the 1990s were eligible to receive adoption assistance subsidies retroactive to the dates of the children’s adoptions and prospectively through their eighteenth birthdays. The children’s attorneys successfully argued to the Commonwealth Court that the adopted children were eligible for subsidies pursuant to the Pennsylvania Adoption Opportunities Act (AOA). The Department of Public Welfare (DPW) appealed the Commonwealth Court’s decision. Upon review of the underlying cases, the Supreme Court held that "adoption subsidies were never intended to be windfalls for adoptive parents." The Court reversed the lower court’s decision and reinstated the DPW's ruling with respect to the appellants in the consolidated cases. View "Laird v. Penna. Dep't. of Public Welfare" on Justia Law

Appellant, the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association, appeals a portion of the opinion and order issued by the Commonwealth Court that invalidated a provision of âAct 111â that addressed the pay state troopers are to receive while on âunion leave.â A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was set to expire in 2008. When the parties reached an impasse in their negotiations for a new CBA, the Association requested arbitration pursuant to Act 111. After a hearing, the Act 111 Panel entered an award concerning several issues, including the issue of payment to troopers while on âunion leave.â The Commonwealth appealed the arbitration award to the Commonwealth Court. The Court vacated the union leave provision of the award. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Commonwealth argued that the union leave provision of the award violated the State Employeesâ Retirement Code (SERC). The Supreme Court held that the union leave provision did not violate SERC, and that arbitration award was within the authority of the arbitration panel to award. Because arbitration awards issued pursuant to Act 111 are final and binding on the parties with no appeal permitted to any court, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Courtâs decision to the extent it contradicted the holding of this case.

In 1998, Appellee Stephen Heim filed a professional liability action against two doctors and their medical practices alleging that their negligent care from 1992 to 1996 caused the death of his wife. In August 2000, Mr. Heim received a jury verdict for over $1 million. The jury attributed a substantial percentage of fault to Mrs. Heim, and apportioned the remaining liability among the defendant doctors, which they bore jointly and severally. At the time of the alleged negligent acts, the doctors each maintained primary professional liability insurance coverage for $200,000 per occurrence under a policy issued by a private insurer. That insurer went bankrupt, and the policy was assumed by the Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Association (PPCIGA). Excess liability protection was provided to health care providers through a government-run contingency fund known as the Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund (CAT Fund). It was determined that the primary insurance policy left a $100,000 shortfall in order to satisfy Mr. Heimâs judgment. The CAT Fund determined it had no responsibility to redress the shortfall from the primary insurerâs bankruptcy. With no insurance money to protect them, Mr. Heim sued against the doctorsâ assets seeking to recover the unpaid portion of the judgment that neither the insurance company nor the CAT Fund would pay. The Commonwealth Court ruled in Mr. Heimâs favor, but in accordance with joint and several liability, applied the order to both PPCIGA and the CAT Fund. The Fund appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that under the statutory scheme that governs the CAT Fund, the facts of this case clearly implicated the Fundâs responsibility to the doctors to pay for the $100,000 shortfall left by their primary insurance policy. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the Commonwealth Court.