Reinhart, N. v. Erie Ins. Co.

J-A12038-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NICHOLAS REINHART AND DENISE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF REINHART, PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee No. 2034 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Order dated August 26, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No(s): CI-12-04806 BEFORE: BOWES, DONOHUE, and ALLEN, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED APRIL 30, 2015 Insured homeowners Nicholas and Denise Reinhart, (“Mr. Reinhart,” “Mrs. Reinhart,” or collectively “Appellants”), appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellants’ insurer, Erie Insurance Company, (“Erie”), regarding Count I of Appellants’ complaint for breach of contract. The trial court determined that Erie was entitled to summary relief because Appellants failed to file their breach of contract claim against Erie within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Erie’s insurance policy. Appellants’ remaining bad faith claim against Erie under Count II of their complaint remains pending. Recognizing, inter alia, that “deferring appellate review on the adjudicated breach of contract claim would potentially harm [Appellants’] ability to pursue their unadjudicated bad faith claim,” the trial court, by order dated October 6, 2014, granted J-A12038-15 Appellants’ motion for a determination of finality pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 341(c), allowing Appellants to pursue an immediate direct appeal to the trial court’s determination regarding Count I of Appellants’ complaint for breach of contract.1 Appellants present the following issues for our consideration: [I.] DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ERIE ON THE [APPELLANTS’] BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM? [II.] DID THE TRIAL COURT MISINTERPRET AND MISAPPLY THE RELEVANT INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS? [III.] COULD A REASONABLE JUROR HAVE FOUND THAT ERIE’S CONDUCT, IN ADVISING [APPELLANTS] THAT "THE RIGHTS OF THE INSURED ... UNDER THE POLICY AND APPLICABLE LAW, ARE FULLY RESERVED AND ANY SUCH ACTION TAKEN DURING THE INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OR ESTOPPEL TO ASSERT ANY SUCH RIGHT," AND OTHER CONDUCT, EXCUSED [APPELLANTS] FROM ANY REQUIREMENT OF SUING ERIE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE FIRE? [IV.] DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT INSURANCE POLICY REQUIRED [APPELLANTS] TO FILE SUIT AGAINST ERIE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF THE FIRE? Appellants’ Brief at 4. ____________________________________________ 1 On October 17, 2014, “out of an abundance of caution,” Appellants filed with our Court a petition for our review pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311. Appellants’ Petition for Review Pursuant to the Note to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1311, 10/17/14, at 5. On December 4, 2014, by per curiam order, we granted Appellants’ petition for review pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311. -2- J-A12038-15 We recognize: Our scope of review … [of summary judgment orders] … is plenary. We apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate the plaintiff’s proof of the elements of his cause of action. Summary judgment is proper if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. Thus a record that supports summary judgment will either (1) show the material facts are undisputed or (2) contain insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense and, therefore, there is no issue to be submitted to the jury. Upon appellate review we are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law, but may reach our own conclusions. The appellate Court may disturb the trial court’s order only upon an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Alexander v. City of Meadville, 61 A.3d 218, 221 (Pa. Super. 2012) (internal citations omitted). Further, we acknowledge: “The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo, thus, we need not defer to the findings of the lower tribunals. Our scope of review, to the extent necessary to resolve the legal question before us, is plenary.” Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 589 Pa. 317, 331, 908 A.2d 888, 893 (2006). Our purpose in interpreting insurance contracts is -3- J-A12038-15 to ascertain the intent of the parties as manifested by the terms used in the written insurance policy. 401 Fourth Street, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Group, 583 Pa. 445, 454, 879 A.2d 166, 171 (2005). “When the language of the policy is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language.” Kvaerner, 589 Pa. at 331, 908 A.2d at 897. However, “when a provision in the policy is ambiguous, the policy is to be construed in favor of the insured to further the contract’s prime purpose of indemnification and against the insurer, as the insurer drafts the policy and controls coverage.” Id. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 938 A.2d 286, 290 (Pa. 2007). Moreover, Absent issues pertaining to the discovery rule, “[w]hether the statute of limitations has run on a claim is generally a question of law for the trial judge.” Devine v. Hutt, 863 A.2d 1160, 1167 (Pa. Super. 2004). Which statute of limitations applies to a cause of action is also a matter of law for the court to determine. Packer Soc. Hill Travel Agency, Inc. v. Presbyterian University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 430 Pa.Super. 625, 635 A.2d 649, 651 (1993). Additionally, the interpretation and “application of a statute is a question of law that compels plenary review to determine whether the court committed an error of law.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 871 A.2d 254, 262 (Pa. Super. 2005); Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283, 1285 (Pa. Super. 2005). Wilson v. Transport Ins. Co., 889 A.2d 563, 570 (Pa. Super. 2005). Mindful of the foregoing precepts, we carefully examined the certified record, Appellants’ arguments, and prevailing jurisprudence, and found Appellants’ claims of trial court error to be without merit. On August 26, 2014, the Honorable David L. Ashworth issued a well-reasoned, well-written, and sound opinion, which thoroughly addresses Appellants’ claims regarding the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Erie’s favor as to Count I of Appellants’ complaint, the trial court’s interpretation of Erie’s insurance -4- J-A12038-15 policy, and Appellants’ argument that Erie was estopped from invoking the statute of limitations defense. The trial court’s rationale is cogently expressed, citing applicable case law along with the record, such that further analysis and commentary by this Court would be redundant. We therefore adopt as our own the trial court’s August 26, 2014 opinion, and affirm the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Erie as to Count I of Appellants’ complaint regarding breach of contract. We do not reach Appellants’ remaining unadjudicated bad faith claim under Count II of their complaint, which is not before us and regarding which we make no disposition. Order affirmed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/30/2015 -5- Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM Circulated 04/16/2015 04:12 PM