Case Title: Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pinkerton, et al., Appeal of: Interthal; No. 20wap2002, et al.; J-121A-D-2002 (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-121A-D-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOLLY LYNN PINKERTON, PAUL R. PINKERTON, P.G. PUBLISHING COMPANY, FRANCIS E. PFEDERHIRT, MARK R. INTERTHAL AND NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY APPEAL OF: MARK R. INTERTHAL STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant v. RANDALL P. CRALEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAYNEANN M. CRALEY, RANDALL P. CRALEY, PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF KEITH P. CRALEY, A MINOR, AND RANDALL P. CRALEY, IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND GLORIA M. CRALEY AND LAWRENCE W. CRALEY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 20 WAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered November 19, 2001 at No1175WDA2000 quashing the appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered June 15, 2000, at NoGD98-9431. ARGUED: September 9, 2002 No. 28 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered September 26, 2001 at No1117MDA2000 quashing the appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, entered April 26, 2000 at No97-9019. ARGUED: September 9, 2002 [J-121-2002] - 2 PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee v. SHIRLEY HASSON AND ARTHUR E. HASSON, II, Appellants HOMESTEAD INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. PENJERDEL REFRIGERATION COMPANY AND EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 42 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered October 10, 2001 at No319EDA2001 quashing the appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, entered January 5, 2001 at No98-15206. SUBMITTED: September 9, 2002 No. 48 MAP 2002 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered November 5, 2001, at No1993EDA2001 quashing the appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, entered June 20, 2001 at No92-05134. ARGUED: September 9, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: AUGUST 20, 2003 I join the Majority, but write separately to point out that that the Superior Court in the cases at hand misinterpreted our decision in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Wickett, 763 A.2d 813 (Pa. 2000), by holding that the filing of post-trial motions was not required following the trial court's granting of declaratory relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act. As indicated by the analysis of the Majority, we have addressed a similar issue in Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002), where this Court unequivocally held that, so long as a post-trial order fell within the parameters of [J-121-2002] - 3 Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1(c), it was subject to the requirements of the post-trial motion procedure. At the conclusion of our opinion in Chalkey, we pronounced that, given the confusion concerning the proper post-trial motions procedure, our holding in that case would apply prospectively. 805 A.2d at 497. The present cases arose prior to our decision in Chalkey and illustrate the erroneous interpretation of Wickett by the courts of this Commonwealth. To thwart further confusion and to cement Chalkey with our present decision, at the risk of redundancy, I feel it is necessary to re-emphasize the prospective application of our decision in Chalkey.