J-S76026-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MEGAN PEARCE AND DAVID PEARCE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
DENETTE JONES
Appellee No. 986 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered May 23, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County
Civil Division at No(s): 427-2013-CD
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and OLSON, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED MARCH 30, 2015
Appellants David and Megan Pearce, husband and wife, appeal from
the order granting summary judgment to Appellee Denette Jones, entered
by the Honorable John H. Foradora, Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson
County. After careful review, we affirm.
This case arises from a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on May
30, 2011. The Pearces allege that Jones ran through a stop sign before
striking the vehicle they were in, causing them both injuries.
On May 28, 2013, the Pearces filed a complaint asserting that Jones’s
negligence had caused their injuries. However, no attempt was made to
procure service of the complaint on Jones. The Pearces’ counsel notified
Jones’s insurer of the fact that he had been retained. After receiving
acknowledgment of receipt of the notice from Jones’s insurer, Pearces’
J-S76026-14
counsel e-mailed a copy of the filed complaint to the insurer on August 22,
2013.
On September 25, 2013, the Pearces attempted to file a praecipe to
have the complaint reinstated, but failed to include the required fee to the
Prothonotary. Thereafter, on November 8, 2013, the Pearces filed a
praecipe to reinstate the complaint. The reinstated complaint was not
served upon Jones, as the sheriff’s return indicated that the address was
incorrect.
The Pearces obtained new counsel, and on January 24, 2014, they
again praeciped to have the complaint reinstated. This time, the sheriff
successfully served the reinstated complaint upon Jones as indicated by the
sheriff’s return of service filed January 28, 2014. After filing an answer,
Jones filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the Pearces had
failed to satisfy the good-faith effort at procuring service under the Lamp1
rule. The trial court granted Jones’s motion for summary judgment, and this
timely appeal followed.
On appeal, the Pearces first argue that the trial court erred in finding
that they had not satisfied the Lamp rule. This Court has previously
described the rule in the following terms:
It is well settled in this Commonwealth pursuant to [Lamp] and
Faranacci v. Beaver County Industrial Development
____________________________________________
1
Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1976).
-2-
J-S76026-14
Authority, … 511 A.2d 757 ([Pa.] 1986), that service of original
process completes the progression of events by which an action
is commenced. Once an action is commenced by writ of
summons or complaint the statute of limitations is tolled only if
the plaintiff then makes a good faith effort to effectuate service.
What constitutes a ‘good faith’ effort to serve legal process is a
matter to be assessed on a case by case basis. Where
noncompliance with Lamp is alleged, the court must determine
in its sound discretion whether a good-faith effort to effectuate
notice was made.
Englert v. Fazio Mechanical Services, Inc., 932 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (internal citations and some quotation marks omitted). A
determination that a plaintiff has not acted in good faith is committed to
the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent
an abuse of that discretion. See McCreesh v. City of Philadelphia, 888
A.2d 664, 672 (Pa. 2005).
In the instant case, the trial court found that there was no evidence
of any effort by the Pearces to provide timely service of the complaint upon
Jones. A review of the certified record on appeal reveals ample support for
the trial court’s finding. There is no indication that the Pearces requested
service of the complaint by the sheriff when it was initially filed. Nor is
there any evidence that the Pearces provided a copy of the complaint to
Jones by any other manner until August 22, 2013, when a copy of the
complaint was e-mailed to a claims adjuster at Jones’s insurer.
Additionally, there is no evidence that Jones had actual notice of the
complaint prior to August 22, 2013. The Pearces argue that an e-mail from
the adjuster establishes that Jones had actual notice of the litigation. Even
-3-
J-S76026-14
assuming that the adjuster qualifies as Jones’s agent for actual notice
purposes, we note that the copy of the e-mail included in the certified
record does not support the Pearce’s argument.
Actual notice of the potential for litigation is not sufficient; a
defendant must have actual notice of the commencement of litigation to
satisfy the Lamp rule. See McCreesh, 888 A.2d at 672, n. 17. The e-
mail from the adjuster acknowledged nothing more than “receipt of your
letter of representation.” This was not an acknowledgment that the insurer
was aware of the commencement of litigation, merely that counsel had
been retained. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that the Pearces had not satisfied the good-faith effort
requirement of Lamp.
In the alternative, the Pearces contend that the trial court erred in
failing to consider whether Jones suffered any prejudice. Initially, we note
that the Pearces do not cite to any authority in support of this argument.
See Appellants’ Brief, at 14. In any event, we agree with the trial court
that an inquiry into prejudice was unnecessary under the circumstances.
Since the Pearces did not establish that they had engaged in a good-faith
effort to secure service upon Jones in a timely manner, that service was not
procured within the statute of limitations, and that there was no actual
notice of the commencement of litigation in this matter, there was no need
to consider whether Jones suffered any prejudice.
-4-
J-S76026-14
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott joins in the memorandum.
Judge Olson files a dissenting memorandum.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/30/2015
-5-