J-A23024-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

ROBERT A. HALL, ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DAVID JONATHAN HALL 

AND THE ESTATE OF DAVID JONATHAN 

HALL 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

21ST CENTURY PREFERRED INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

 Appellant No. 1548 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order September 10, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Civil Division at No(s): GD 11-010190 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 07, 2015

 21st Century Preferred Insurance Company (21st Century), formerly 

AIG Preferred Insurance Company, appeals from the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County that denied its motion for leave to 

perfect post-trial motion or alternatively to allow filing and service of new 

post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. After careful review, we affirm the order of 

the trial court, although for reasons different from those set forth by the trial 

court. 

 On June 3, 2011, Robert Hall, Administrator of the Estate of David 

Jonathan Hall and the Estate of David Jonathan Hall (Hall) filed a declaratory 

judgment and breach of contract action against 21st Century for failure to 
J-A23024-15 

- 2 - 

provide UIM coverage. Hall and 21st Century both filed motions for summary 

judgment, which the court denied on April 8, 2013. 

 On January 13, 2014, following a non-jury trial, the court issued an 

order directing 21st Century to provide UIM coverage to Hall. On January 

21, 2014, 21st Century electronically filed a motion for post-trial relief 

requesting a new trial or entry of a declaratory judgment n.o.v. 21st Century 

failed to serve the trial court with a true and correct copy of the post-trial 

motion in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(f) and Allegheny County Local Rule 

227.1(a). 

 After 120 days passed without the trial court taking action on the posttrial motion, Hall filed a praecipe for entry of judgment on May 28, 2014, 

pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.4(1)(b). 

 On June 5, 2014, 21st Century filed a notice of appeal to this Court, 

which was docketed at 914 WDA 2014. On August 15, 2014, the trial court 

issued a statement in lieu of opinion in which it noted that because 21st

Century had not served a copy of its motion on the court, the court had no 

knowledge of the motion and never ruled on it. The court concluded that 

because “it was not provided the means to address issues post-trial, this 

[c]ourt cannot now address those issues.” Statement in Lieu of Opinion, 

8/15/14, at 1-2.1

____________________________________________ 

1

 On October 7, 2014, this Court dismissed 21st Century’s appeal. Following 

this Court’s denial of 21st Century’s application for reconsideration and en 

(Footnote Continued Next Page) 
J-A23024-15 

- 3 - 

 On August 27, 2014, after 21st Century became aware of its failure to 

serve a copy of its post-trial motion on the court, it filed a motion for leave 

to perfect post-trial motion or alternatively to allow filing and service of new 

post-trial motion nunc pro tunc. The trial court denied the motion on 

September 10, 2014. 

 21st Century filed a timely notice of appeal on September 22, 2014, 

and on September 26, 2014, the trial court filed a statement in lieu of 

opinion. 

 On appeal, 21st Century raises three issues, only one of which we will 

address: 

Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by 

denying [21st Century’s] motion for leave to perfect post-trial 

motion or alternatively to allow filing and service of new posttrial motion nunc pro tunc and to grant post-trial relief, as the 

trial court had jurisdiction and was not prohibited by Rule 

227.4(1)(b) from granting the requested relief, in that any 

noncompliance with Rule 227.1(f) was inadvertent, merely 

technical and non-negligent happenstance, [Hall] was not 

prejudiced, nunc pro tunc relief was timely sought, and, the 

harsh sanction of waiver was unjust. 

Appellant’s Brief, at 4.2

 Pa.R.C.P. 227.4 provides, in relevant part: 

(Footnote Continued) _______________________ 

banc reargument, 21st Century filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which 

our Supreme Court denied on April 28, 2015. 

2

 21st Century’s remaining issues relate to the denial of summary judgment, 

which we need not address in light of our disposition of 21st Century’s 

request for nunc pro tunc relief. 
J-A23024-15 

- 4 - 

Rule 227.4 Entry of Judgment upon Praecipe of a Party 

[T]he prothonotary shall, upon praecipe of a party:

(1) enter judgment upon . . . the decision of a judge following 

a trial without a jury, if 

. . . 

(b) one or more timely post-trial motions are filed and the 

court does not enter an order disposing of all motions within one 

hundred and twenty days after the filing of the first motion. A 

judgment entered pursuant to this subparagraph shall be final as 

to all parties and all issues and shall not be subject to 

reconsideration. 

Pa.R.C.P. 227.4. 

 With respect to this Rule, our Court has held: 

In view of the language of Rule 227.4(1)(b) and the explanatory 

comment, it is clear that once the requisite 120 day period runs 

and a party opts to praecipe for the entry of judgment, the 

judgment becomes final, and immediately appealable when 

entered on the docket. . . . It is equally clear that the judgment 

is not subject to either reconsideration or any other motion to 

strike, open or vacate. 

Conte v. Hahnemann University Hospital, 707 A.2d 230, 231 (Pa. Super. 

1998). 

 In its statement in lieu of opinion in support of the denial of 21st

Century’s motion for leave to perfect post-trial motion or alternatively to 

allow filing and service of new post-trial motion nunc pro tunc, the trial court 

relied on Rule 227.4(1)(b) and Conte. Although not expressly stated by the 

trial court, it appears to have determined that it did not have jurisdiction to 

consider the request for nunc pro tunc relief. We disagree. 
J-A23024-15 

- 5 - 

 21st Century’s August 21, 2014 motion did not seek reconsideration of 

the entry of judgment nor did it seek to strike, open or vacate the judgment. 

Rather, 21st Century sought nunc pro tunc post-trial relief to perfect or refile 

its post-trial motion. 

 In Freeman v. Bonner, 761 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2000), this Court 

held that a trial court has jurisdiction to grant nunc pro tunc relief even after 

judgment is entered. The appellant in Freeman filed a post-trial motion to 

remove a nonsuit but did not file a memorandum of law and took no further 

action. The appellee entered judgment by praecipe 120 days later because 

the court did not rule on the motion. No appeal was taken from the 

judgment, and the appellee subsequently filed a praecipe to discontinue. 

Two days later, the appellant filed a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc, 

requesting removal of the nonsuit and the grant of a new trial. The trial 

court denied the motion, holding that pursuant to Rule 227.4(1)(b), it did 

not have jurisdiction to consider the motion. 

 Recognizing that under Rule 227.4(1)(b) a judgment is final and 

appealable once entered and cannot be reconsidered, this Court noted: 

The correct procedure upon entry of such judgment would be for 

the aggrieved party to appeal the judgment and have the merits 

of the outstanding Post-Trial Motions addressed by the appellate 

court “as if the [trial] court had ruled” on the motions. Gibbs v. 

Herman, 714 A.2d 431 (Pa. Super. 1998). 

Freeman, supra, at 1195. 

 Because Rule 227.4(1)(b) does not prohibit the trial court from 

reinstating a party’s right to relief, nunc pro tunc, the Freeman Court 
J-A23024-15 

- 6 - 

proceeded to analyze whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying 

the appellant’s motion. In so doing, it applied the following principles: 

“As a general rule, an appeal nunc pro tunc is only granted in 

civil cases where there was fraud or a breakdown in the court’s 

operations.” Lee v. Guerin, 735 A.2d 1290, 1281 (Pa. Super. 

1999) (citing West Penn Power v. Goddard, 333 A.2d 909 

(Pa. 1975). “In recent years, however, the courts have 

somewhat liberalized this rigid standard.” Id. In Bass v. 

Commonwealth, 401 A.2d 1133 (Pa. 1979), the Pennsylvania 

Supreme Court created “a new ground for an appeal nunc pro 

tunc, i.e. non-negligent happenstance.” In re In the Interest 

of C.K., 535 A.2d 634, 637 (Pa. Super. 1987). 

Freeman, supra at 1195. 

 Therefore, as in Freeman, we must determine whether 21st Century’s 

actions constitute non-negligent happenstance that justifies nunc pro tunc 

relief. We find guidance for this determination in Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 

1156 (Pa. 2001), where our Supreme Court noted: 

The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in nonnegligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and 

compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established 

that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and 

unavoidable events precluded her from actually doing so. See

Cook [v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review], 671 A.2d 

[1130,] 1132 [Pa. 1996]; Perry v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, 459 A.2d 1342, 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (fact that

law clerk’s car broke down while he was on route to the post 

office, precluding him from getting to the post office before 

closing time, was a non-negligent happenstance for granting 

appeal nunc pro tunc); Tony Grande, Inc. v. Workmen’s 

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Rodriquez), 455 A.2d 299, 300 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1983) (hospitalization of appellant’s attorney for 

unexpected and serious cardiac problems ten days into twenty 

day appeal period was reason to allow appeal nunc pro tunc ); 

Walker v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 461 A.2d 

346, 347 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (U.S. Postal Service’s failure to 

forward notice of referee’s decision to appellant’s address, as 
J-A23024-15 

- 7 - 

appellant had requested, warranted appeal nunc pro tunc ). But 

cf. In re In the Interest of C.K., 535 A.2d 634, 639 (Pa. 

Super. 1987) (appeal nunc pro tunc denied where counsel was 

absent from office and did not learn of appellant’s desire to 

appeal before expiration period because counsel negligently 

failed to make arrangements to look over his professional 

obligations); Moring v. Dunne, 493 A.2d 89, 92-93 (Pa. Super. 

1985) (although death of appellant’s attorney may have qualified 

as a non-negligent circumstance, appellant failed to prove that 

he attempted to appeal on time but was precluded from doing so 

as a result of receiving late notice of his attorney’s death). 

Criss, supra at 1160. 

 Here, 21st Century’s failure to serve the court with the post-trial 

motion was not the result of unforeseeable and unavoidable events. Rather, 

it was the result of not following the dictates of Pa.R.C.P. 227.1(f) (“The 

party filing a post-trial motion shall serve a copy promptly upon every other 

party to the action and deliver a copy to the trial judge.”) (emphasis added) 

and Allegheny County Local Rule 227.1(1)(a) (Post-Trial Motions shall be 

filed in the Office of the Prothonotary and a copy shall be delivered to the 

trial judge.”) (emphasis added). 

 Accordingly, counsel’s actions do not constitute non-negligent 

happenstance, and 21st Century has failed to establish entitlement to relief.3

 Order affirmed. Motion to Quash denied. 

____________________________________________ 

3

 The June 5, 2014 notice of appeal did not divest the trial court of 

jurisdiction to consider 21st Century’s motion for nunc pro tunc relief. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(c) (“Where only a particular item, claim or assessment . . . is 

involved in an appeal . . . the appeal shall operate to prevent the trial court 

from proceeding further with only such item, claim or assessment.”). 
J-A23024-15 

- 8 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 12/7/2015