Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Commonwealth appeals from the order granting a stay of execution, vacating appellee’s death sentence, and awarding a new penalty hearing under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Appellee was sentenced to death after being convicted of the 1986 robbery and murder of Amos Norwood. This was appellee's second murder conviction. After review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded Appellee did not prove that a timeliness exception applied to the filing of his petition for relief, and that the PCRA court erred in finding Appellee established his burden of proof under the "governmental interference" exception. The Supreme Court vacated the stay of execution and the grant of a new penalty phase, and reinstate appellee's death sentence. View "Pennsylvania v. Williams" 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

D.C.D. was born in March 2011 to Mother C.Y.D. and Father J.T.W. Clinton County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) took custody of D.C.D. the following day because she suffered medical problems as a result of Mother’s drug use, presumably during her pregnancy. Although she was placed briefly with maternal relatives and another foster family, Child has lived most of her life with her current foster family. The trial court found that she has bonded with this family, who was willing to adopt her. In this appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the Superior Court's holding that a termination of parental rights petition filed by CYS must be denied if the agency failed to employ “reasonable efforts” to reunify a child with her parent. The Supreme Court held that there were remedies available to a court faced with an agency which was not providing reasonable efforts, "refusing a properly proven termination of parental rights petition, and thus harming an innocent child, is not among them." Accordingly, the Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated the trial court’s decision terminating father’s parental rights. View "In the Int of: D.C.D." 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

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the Superior Court erred in holding the right of a juvenile accused to be confronted with a witness against him conferred by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated where the juvenile court admitted into evidence an out-of-court, video-taped, forensic interview of a child complainant under the Tender Years Hearsay Act (“TYHA”), even though defense counsel did not cross-examine the child complainant who had taken the witness stand at the juvenile’s contested adjudication hearing. In light of the unique circumstances of this case (wherein the Commonwealth conceded continued questioning of the unconversable child complainant on direct examination would have been futile, and the juvenile court suggested she be removed from the witness stand), the Supreme Court held the admission of the recorded forensic interview of the child complainant violated the juvenile accused’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. View "In the Interest of: N.C." on Justia Law

The issue this discretionary appeal presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the class action proceedings in this case improperly subjected Appellants to a “trial by formula.” The trial court certified the class, a jury rendered a divided verdict, and the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Appellees brought various class action claims against their former employers, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Sam’s Club (collectively, “Wal-Mart”), based on policies and conduct pertaining to rest breaks and meal breaks. Appellees alleged Wal-Mart promised them paid rest and meal breaks, but then had forced them, in whole or in part, to miss breaks or work through breaks, and also to work “off-the-clock.” The trial court certified a class consisting of "all [then] current and former hourly employees of Wal-Mart in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from March 19, 1998 to the present December 27, 2005.” The class ultimately consisted of 187,979 members. Ultimately, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Wal-Mart on all claims relating to meal breaks but in favor of Appellees on all claims relating to rest breaks and off-the-clock work. The amount of the judgment ultimately entered on the verdict was $187,648,589. After Wal-Mart appealed, the Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part in a published unanimous per curiam opinion, which corrected a patent mathematical error committed by the trial court, reversed the award of attorneys’ fees, and remanded to the trial court to recalculate the lodestar it had employed to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees. The issues Wall-Mart's appeal raised for the Supreme Court's review were: (1) whether Wal-Mart was subjected to a “trial by formula,” (suggesting that the class claims could only be properly proven by an individual examination of the 187,979 class members to determine their claims); and (2) whether Appellees were thereby improperly relieved of their burden to produce class-wide common evidence on key elements of their claims. The Supreme Court found there was a single, central, common issue of liability here: whether Wal-Mart failed to compensate its employees in accordance with its own written policies. On that question, both parties presented evidence. Wal-Mart’s liability was proven on a classwide basis. Damages were assessed based on a computation of the average rate of an employee’s pay (about eight dollars per hour) multiplied by the number of hours for which pay should have been received but was not. In the Court's view, "this was not a case of 'trial by formula' or of a class action 'run amok.'" Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Hummel v. Walmart Stores, Inc" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether a law firm’s post-election forgiveness of a political campaign committee’s unpaid legal fees, which were incurred due to the firm’s representation of a candidate in a ballot challenge, is subject to the contribution limitations established in the Philadelphia Campaign Finance Law (as applicable in 2007). The Commonwealth Court held that the post-election forgiveness of debt would constitute a “contribution” to the candidate’s political campaign under Section 1001(6) of the Code, and, thus, was subject to the $10,000 per year contribution limitation set forth in Section 1001(2). After its review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the law firm’s forgiveness of debt would not constitute a contribution to the candidate’s political campaign as the debt at issue was not incurred “for use in . . . influencing the election of the candidate.” View "O'Connor v. City of Phila." on Justia Law

Appellant, who had been inside the house, heard the officers enter, and fled through a third-story window, wearing only a pair of sweatpants and socks. He ran along a rooftop, jumped onto a car parked in an adjacent alley, and then ran to the home of Michele Gray. He informed Gray that he had beaten his girlfriend, Angelina Taylor, and that he had fled when he had heard the police in the house. He also told her that at the time he fled, Taylor had been pale, motionless, unresponsive, and having trouble breathing. Meanwhile, the officers made their way to the rear bedroom on the third floor, where they discovered a woman, later identified as Angelina Taylor, naked under a sheet on a mattress on the floor. Taylor was seriously injured, with numerous bruises and cuts visible on her face and body, including her pelvic region, as well as severe bruising on both sides of her throat and around both eyes. Officers called for emergency response personnel, who took the victim to the hospital. She was diagnosed as comatose due to bleeding in the brain. In the trauma unit, a rape-kit examination was conducted, which revealed numerous lacerations, bruises and abrasions. The victim never regained consciousness and her brainstem herniated from the swelling inside her head. Appellant was arrested, and a jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree murder and rape. The PCRA judge, who had also presided at trial, denied Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief, and Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. Appellant raised twelve issues for review. Taking each and turn and finding Appellant did not meet his burden for relief, the Supreme Court affirmed the PCRA court's decision. View "Pennsylvania v. Davido" 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