Case Title: NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. D.L. WICKETT AND J.PESCE, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF J.R. PESCE AND D.L. WICKETT AND J.A. PESCE INIDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS THE SURVIVING NATURAL CHILDREN AND NEXT OF KIN OF J.R. PESCE, DECEASED V. HURON INSURANCE COMPANY; APPEAL OF: HURON INSURANCE COMPANY (Dissenting Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-32-2000] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DEBORAH L. WICKETT AND JAMES PESCE, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN RICHARD PESCE AND DEBORAH L. WICKETT AND JAMES A. PESCE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS THE SURVIVING NATURAL CHILDREN AND NEXT OF KIN OF JOHN RICHARD PESCE, DECEASED v. HURON INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL OF: HURON INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 63 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered 12/22/98 at No. 86PGH98 affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County entered 11/13/97 at No. 96-879. WALTER ROBERT HOLLOBAUGH AND RUTH A. HOLLOBAUGH v. LOUIS PESCE, PESCE METAL FABRICATING INC., WILBERT MCMILLEN, JR., STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND HURON INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 64 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered 12/22/98 at No. 87PGH98 affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County entered 11/13/97 at No. 96-171. [J-32-2000] - 2 APPEAL OF: HURON INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : DEBORAH L. WICKETT AND JAMES A. PESCE, CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN RICHARD PESCE AND DEBORAH L. WICKETT AND JAMES A. PESCE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS THE SURVIVING NATURAL CHILDREN AND NEXT OF KIN OF JOHN RICHARD PESCE, DECEASED v. LOUIS PESCE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT, SERVANT AND EMPLOYEE OF PESCE METAL FABRICATING INC., PESCE METAL FABRICATING INC., A BUSINESS CORPORATION, WILBERT MCMILLEN, NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND HURON INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL OF: HURON INSURANCE COMPANY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 65 W.D. Appeal Docket 1999 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered 12/22/98 at No. 88PGH98 affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County entered 11/13/97 at No. 96-151. ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2000 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: DECEMBER 22, 2000 In this appeal, the majority adopts a reasonable, plain-meaning construction of Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(b)(2) as it relates to the Declaratory Judgments Act, and its reasoning appears to follow from the Court’s prior decision in [J-32-2000] - 3 General Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Allen, 547 Pa. 693, 706-07, 692 A.2d 1089, 1095 (1997). Nevertheless, since the opinion ultimately rests upon an interpretation of the intention of the General Assembly, I am troubled by the absence of any express indication within the Declaratory Judgments Act to the effect that the Legislature wished to alter the usual rules of appealability in the context of declaratory judgment proceedings, as has been included within other enactments when the purpose is as such. See, e.g., 42 Pa.C.S. §7320 (providing explicitly that appeals may be taken from various interlocutory orders, such as an order denying an application to compel arbitration). Moreover, the primary and direct purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act, a version of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, was to authorize courts to grant declaratory relief in the face of objections that such relief represented the giving of advisory opinions rather than the adjudication of controversies. See generally Petition of Kariher, 284 Pa. 455, 463, 131 A. 265, 268 (1925). As the language of Section 7532 pertaining to the finality of “the declaration” is essential to this central purpose, I would read such language as aligning declaratory judgment jurisprudence with that which applies to civil actions generally, rather than as creating a separate and unique scheme for the appeal of otherwise interlocutory orders in declaratory judgment proceedings.