J-S52028-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

ROGER D. SHAFFER AND ANN 

DOLIVEIRA SHAFFER, HIS WIFE, 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellants 

v. 

EBENSBURG POWER CO.; BABCOCK & 

WILCOX EBENSBURG POWER INC.; 

T/D/B/A EBENSBURG POWER CO.; 

EBENSBURG INVESTORS LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP T/D/B/A EBENSBURG 

POWER CO, POWER SYSTEMS 

OPERATIONS, INC., 

 Appellees No. 225 WDA 2015 

Appeal from the Order Entered January 8, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County 

Civil Division at No(s): 2001-4552 

BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and WECHT, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2015 

 Appellants, Roger D. Shaffer (Roger) and Ann Doliveira Shaffer (Ann) 

(collectively, Appellants), appeal from the order entered on January 8, 2015 

denying Appellants’ request for interest on settlement funds. We affirm. 

 The facts and protracted procedural history of this case are as follows. 

On February 5, 2001, Roger was injured at the Ebensburg Power Company 

electrical generation plant. As a result, he filed a personal injury suit against 

Appellees (collectively, hereinafter “Ebensburg”). In 2003, just prior to trial, 

the parties reached a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Ebensburg 

presented Appellants with three settlement options, two providing annuity 
J-S52028-15 

- 2 - 

options and another providing for a lump sum payment. However, 

Appellants attempted to rescind and never signed an agreement. In October 

2003, Ebensburg sought to enforce the settlement agreement. Following 

argument, the trial court enforced the settlement agreement and directed 

Appellants to execute all settlement documents and releases. Moreover, the 

trial court determined Ebensburg was not responsible for any interest on the 

settlement proceeds. Appellants appealed and this Court affirmed. Shaffer 

v. Ebensburg Power, 864 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004). Following this 

Court’s decision, Ebensburg again presented Appellants with three 

settlement options that they refused to execute. On February 16, 2005, the 

trial court ordered Ebensburg to deposit a portion of the settlement with the 

Prothonotary and release another portion to Appellants’ counsel. 

Meanwhile, in November 2003, Ebensburg’s insurance company, 

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), attempted to fund an annuity 

with Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Life). However, 

because Appellants did not finalize the settlement agreement, Liberty Life 

unilaterally returned the funds to Liberty in June 2010. Liberty then 

attempted to release the settlement funds to Appellants, but they demanded 

interest and again refused to execute necessary documentation. On August 

14, 2014, Appellants filed a petition for the enforcement of a structured 

settlement, asserting that structured settlement sequestration was an 

integral part of settlement and they expected the funds had been invested 

and yielded some return. In an order and opinion entered on October 2, 
J-S52028-15 

- 3 - 

2014, the trial court determined that Appellants had not entered into a 

written settlement agreement, despite numerous orders directing Appellants 

to do so. Accordingly, it concluded that Appellants could not rely upon 

unsigned documents or Liberty’s spontaneous act of initially funding the 

annuity to obligate Liberty to provide interest or investment returns. 

However, the trial court noted that equity required any interest or return on 

investments earned from November 12, 2003 through June 2, 2010 be 

provided to Appellants, but that Appellants were not entitled to additional 

interest. 

After receiving affidavits from Liberty Life that no interest or earned 

returns accrued on the funds because an annuity was never funded, the 

parties sought clarification of the October 2, 2014 order. After argument, on 

January 8, 2015, the trial court entered an order stating Appellants were not 

entitled to additional interest on the settlement funds. This timely appeal 

resulted.1 

On appeal, Appellants present the following issue for our review: 

Whether the [trial] court erred in holding [] Appellants are 

not entitled to interest on [their] settlement? 

Appellants’ Brief at 4 (complete capitalization omitted). 

____________________________________________ 

1

 Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on February 5, 2015. On 

February 25, 2015, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) directing Appellants to file a concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal. Appellants complied on March 19, 2015. In response, the trial 

court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on March 31, 2015. 
J-S52028-15 

- 4 - 

 In sum, Appellants argue: 

[] Appellants maintain that the [trial court] should have 

ordered interest on the proceeds that were held by the 

insurance company from 2003 to 2010 on the annuity sum 

as part of a structured settlement that was ordered by the 

[trial court]. An abuse of discretion would be warranted if 

such an interest was not declared by the [trial court]. [] 

Appellants had a reasonable expectation that interest on an 

annuity sum would be earned from 2003 to 2010 and [are] 

asking this Court to order the lower court to reconsider the 

decision and issue an [o]rder declaring interest due and 

payable from 2003 to 2014 on the principle annuity sum 

held by the insurance company in this matter. 

[] Appellants maintain that the money due to [] Appellants 

on this settlement was a liquidated sum and applicable to 

have interest paid on said sum. [] Appellants maintain that 

because the amounts to be paid to [] Appellants were 

overdue, those payments should have earned interest from 

the time they were due to [] Appellants, i.e., 2010. In fact, 

the insurance representative contacted [] Appellants about 

having the payout made in 2010. There is a liquidated 

amount due in a fixed amount to [] Appellants. As such, 

interest is due on those proceeds. The duty to pay by the 

insurance company was a certain duty to pay and was fixed 

and liquidated. That amount became liquidated when it was 

capable of ascertainment with mathematical precision. In 

this case, the $100,000[.00] due to [] Appellants was put in 

the enforced agreement and the insurance company knew it 

had to pay that rate. The [trial court] had discretion as to 

whether to award interest and abused this discretion based 

on the application of [] law which requires interest be paid 

to [] Appellants on this liquidated fixed certain sum. 

Id. at 9-10. 

“The issue before us involves the proper interpretation of a rule. This is 

a question of law, and thus, our standard of review is de novo. Our scope of 

review, to the extent necessary to resolve the legal question before us is the 
J-S52028-15 

- 5 - 

entire record, and thus, is plenary.” Wright v. Lexington & Concord 

Search & Abstract LLC, 26 A.3d 1134, 1136 (Pa. Super. 2011). 

Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229.1 governs the procedure for 

seeking interest on settlement funds. If the terms of the settlement are not 

fulfilled, the aggrieved party typically seeks redress through a motion to 

enforce settlement. See Pa.R.C.P. 229.1. The Rule contains a variety of 

options, including invalidating the agreement and proceeding with the 

lawsuit, or seeking sanctions which include the award of attorneys' fees 

and/or interest. Id. More specifically, “[i]f a plaintiff and a defendant have 

entered into an agreement of settlement, the defendant shall deliver the 

settlement funds to the attorney for the plaintiff, or to the plaintiff if 

unrepresented, within twenty calendar days from receipt of an executed 

release.” Pa.R.C.P. 229.1(c) (emphasis added). “If the court finds that the 

defendant violated subdivision (c) of this rule and that there is no material 

dispute as to the terms of the settlement or the terms of the release, 

the court shall impose sanctions in the form of interest[.]” Pa.R.C.P. 

229.1(g) (emphasis added). 

Here, the trial court noted that this matter has been ongoing for well 

over 11 years. Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/2015, at 6. It recognized that this 

Court has determined that the settlement agreement was enforceable. Id. 

The trial court stated that despite that determination “and multiple orders 

that [Appellants] execute the settlement documents[,] they did nothing to 
J-S52028-15 

- 6 - 

secure the release of the funds or aid in the establishment of an annuity.” 

Id. 

Based upon our review, we agree Appellants are not entitled to 

interest on the settlement funds. Initially, we note Appellants do not 

acknowledge Rule 229.1 in their brief to this Court or argue it is somehow 

inapplicable to this matter. Appellants have not executed a release under 

Rule 229.1(c) and, thus, the duty to transfer the settlement proceeds (and 

any related duty to pay interest) was not triggered under our procedural 

rules. This Court previously affirmed an order to this effect. See Shaffer v. 

Ebensburg Power, 864 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004). Instead, Appellants 

baldly maintain that interest is due because the amounts owed them have 

been withheld and are now overdue. The record, however, establishes that 

the settlement funds have been ready and available to Appellants and their 

refusal has produced the long delay. Under these circumstances, Appellants 

simply are not entitled to interest and we discern no legal error or abuse of 

discretion in the trial court’s ruling. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 11/13/2015