J. S67029/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

HARFORD INSURANCE COMPANY 

A/S/O CLEAN AND POLISH BUILDING 

SOLUTIONS

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

:

v. :

:

LILLY CAB CORPORATION, PINELANDS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, RRG, 

INSURANCE OFFICE OF AMERICA, 

SPECTRUM TRANSPORTATION 

AGENCY, LLC, NTA ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

AND AMADOU KOUROUMA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

APPEAL OF: INSURANCE OFFICE OF 

AMERICA AND SPECTRUM 

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, LLC

:

:

:

No. 632 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order January 25, 2016,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No. 002947, November Term, 2015

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J. AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

Insurance Office of America (“IOA”) and Spectrum Transportation 

Agency, LLC (“Spectrum”) (collectively, “appellants”), appeal from the order 

entered January 25, 2016, granting appellee Harford Insurance Company 

a/s/o Clean and Polish Building Solutions’ petition to enforce settlement and 

ordering appellants to pay, jointly and severally, the settlement funds of 

$5,000 together with interest at the rate of 3.25% from December 22, 2014, 

 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S67029/16

- 2 -

and $1,180 in attorneys’ fees.1 We vacate the order and remand for further 

proceedings.

According to the January 25, 2016 order, an agreement to settle this 

case occurred on December 17, 2014. On November 20, 2015, appellee 

filed a praecipe for writ of summons together with a “Petition to Enforce 

Settlement and for Sanctions for Non-Payment of Settlement Funds.” 

Appellee’s petition was granted on January 25, 2016. On February 5, 2016, 

the case was marked deferred, due to an order of liquidation for Pinelands 

Insurance Company (“Pinelands”) from the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia. On February 17, 2016, appellants filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the January 25, 2016 order. On February 19, 2016, 

appellants filed a timely notice of appeal. On February 23, 2016, appellants 

were ordered to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal 

within 21 days pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and they timely complied on 

March 7, 2016. On March 17, 2016, the trial court purported to grant 

appellants’ motion for reconsideration, vacated its order of January 25, 

2016, and ordered the case stayed due to the liquidation of Pinelands and 

the accompanying administrative order (Administrative Docket No. 2 of 

2015). The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 26, 2016. 

Therein, the trial court characterizes the instant appeal as “moot” due to its

 

1 Appellee has elected not to file a brief in this matter. 
J. S67029/16

- 3 -

March 17, 2016 order granting reconsideration. (Trial court opinion, 

4/26/16 at 2.)

On appeal, appellants raise numerous issues, including that they were 

never served with the writ of summons or the petition to enforce settlement. 

According to appellants, they were never parties to any litigation involving 

appellee. Therefore, appellants argue that the trial court had no jurisdiction 

to enter the January 25, 2016 order. Appellants also observe that pursuant 

to the administrative order of September 3, 2015, all matters in which 

Pinelands was a named party and/or any matters against any insured of 

Pinelands, were to be placed in deferred status until further notice. 

(Appellants’ brief at 17.) As such, the November 20, 2015 writ of summons 

and petition to enforce settlement should have been deferred. (Id. at 

17-18.)

Initially, we must address the trial court’s March 17, 2016 order 

granting appellants’ motion for reconsideration of the January 25, 2016 

order. This was well beyond 30 days and after appellants had filed a notice 

of appeal. Therefore, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 5505 (“a court upon notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order 

within 30 days after its entry . . . if no appeal from such an order has been 

taken or allowed.”); PNC Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs, 929 A.2d 219, 

226 (Pa.Super. 2007) (“Under section 5505, the trial court has broad 

discretion to modify or rescind an order, and this power may be exercised 
J. S67029/16

- 4 -

sua sponte or invoked pursuant to a party’s motion for reconsideration.” 

(citation omitted)); Pa.R.A.P. 1701 (tolling the time for taking an appeal only 

when the court files “an order expressly granting reconsideration . . . within 

the time prescribed by these rules for the filing of a notice of appeal.”). See 

also Stephens v. Messick, 799 A.2d 793, 800 (Pa.Super. 2002) 

(“Rule 1701(b)(3) permits a trial court to reconsider an order that has been 

appealed, but only if the trial court enters an order expressly granting 

reconsideration within the time allowed for the taking of the appeal.”). 

Although the entry of a final order triggers the 

30-day appeal period, this period may be tolled if the 

trial court expressly grants a motion for 

reconsideration. Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3). Generally, 

either the lapse of 30 days beyond the date of entry 

of an original order, or the filing of a notice of appeal 

will vitiate the jurisdiction of the trial court to modify, 

alter, or otherwise proceed further in the matter. 

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a); In re Deed of Trust of 

McCargo, 438 Pa.Super. 570, 585, 652 A.2d 1330, 

1337 (1994), appeal denied, 543 Pa. 693, 670 

A.2d 141 (1995). Rule 1701, however, allows the 

trial court to view its order for up to thirty days, 

even after an appeal has been filed, if a party files a 

petition for reconsideration within the 30-day appeal 

period and the trial court files an order “expressly 

granting” reconsideration within the same period. 

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3)(i), (ii).

Valley Forge Center Associates v. Rib-It/K.P., Inc., 693 A.2d 242, 245 

(Pa.Super. 1997). “If a trial court fails to grant reconsideration expressly 

within the prescribed 30 days, it loses the power to act upon both the 

petition and the original order.” Id. (citations omitted).
J. S67029/16

- 5 -

Inasmuch as the trial court intended to grant reconsideration and 

vacate its January 25, 2016 order, however, this court will remand for the 

trial court to properly dispose of appellants’ motion. Appellants raise myriad 

issues on appeal, including lack of personal jurisdiction. We also observe 

that this matter is in deferred status due to Pinelands’ liquidation. 

Therefore, we will remand for the trial court to consider appellants’ 

arguments and issue whatever order it deems appropriate.

Order vacated. Remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction 

relinquished. 

Ransom, J. did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

case.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2016