J

- A14039

- 23

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

ROBERT EGAN

Appellant

v.

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND JACK RUANE : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 105 EDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): 201000413
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JUNE 12, 2023 Robert Egan (“Egan”) appeals from the order sustaining preliminary objections in the form of a demurrer and dismissing the claims in his fifth
amended complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence by Allstate
Propert y and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”)

. We remand for a supplemental trial court opinion.
The allegations of Egan’s fifth amended complaint (“the complaint”) 1 relating to this appeal are as follows. Jack Ruane (“Ruane”) , who issues policies only for Allstate, issued a policy ( “ the policy”) for a property in Boothwyn , Pennsylvania where Ega n resided (“the property”) ; the policy provided coverage only if Egan resided at the property

. See Fifth Amended

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 The trial court previously dismissed Egan’s assertions of bad faith against Allstate and breach of contract against Ruane stated in Egan’s second amended complaint. See Order, 6/15/21.J

- A14039

- 23

- 2

-

Complaint at ¶¶ 25

- 32 and Exhibit “ A. ” In May 2017 , Egan left th e property , having told Ruane that he would be moving out and receiv ing Ruane’s

assurance that he would “take care of’” changes to the polic y
. See id . at 25

- 31. In 2020, the property suffered fire damage and Allstate denied coverage under the policy

. See id . at 32

- 34. Egan’s fifth amended complaint alleges that Allstate’s denial of coverage

constitutes a breach of an oral contract he made with Ruane , see id . at 36

- 40; Ruane breached t he oral contract by failing to make the request ed changes in the policy, see id . at 41

- 52; and Allstate and/or Ruane were negligent resulting in the denial of coverage. See id . at 53

- 65. Allstate and Ruane filed preliminary objections to the complaint. T he trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed Egan’s three claims with prejudice. 2 Egan timely appeal ed and filed a court

- ordered Rule 1925(b) statement challenging the court’s decision to sustain the preliminary objections to the claims in the fifth amended complaint and the claims of bad faith by Allstate and breach of contract by Ruane in the second amended complaint

. See Egan’s Brief at 7

- 25.
The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion but did not address the merits of any of Egan’s subs tantive claims except to state that Egan’s negligence

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
2 The court had previously dismissed the claims of bad faith by Allstate and breach of contract by Ruane asserted in the second amended complaint. See Order, 6/15/21.J

- A14039

- 23

- 3

-

claim failed to assert any duty Ruane owed to Egan

. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/27/23, at 4 (unnumbered). T he opinion does not address the breach of

contract c laim based on the alleged oral contract or the bad faith claim ; it

states only that Egan cannot recover because he did not reside at the property at the time of damage

. See id

. at 6

- 7 (unnumbered). We cannot review the merits of Egan’s claims without the trial court’s opinion addressing the merits of Egan’s claims. 3 Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to file, within thirty days, a supplemental op inion addressing all issues raised in Egan’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

statement. We direct this Court’s prothonotary to issue, upon receipt of the
trial court’s supplemental opinion, a new briefing schedule. Furthermore, we direct that upon receipt of all necessary filings and briefs, the Prothonotary

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______
3 The trial court declined to review the merits of Egan’s claim s because Egan filed his f ifth amended complaint more than twenty days after the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint without leave of court , in violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(e)

. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/27/23 , at 5

- 6. The trial court did not cite Rule 1028(e) when it gran ted Allstate and Ruane’s preliminary objections to Egan’s Fifth Amended Complaint. See Order , 11/28/22. Allstate had previous ly filed in the motions court, a motion to dismiss Egan’s action with prejudice that assert ed as the basis for relief Egan’s failure to comply with Rule 1028(e)

. See Motion to Dismiss Action with Prejudice, 6/6/22, at 4

- 5. The motions court denied th e m otion. See Order, 11/7/22. Accordingly, the trial court’s assertion in its Rule 1925(a) opin ion that a violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(e) required sustaining preliminary objections in the form of a demurrer and dismissing Egan’s complaint after the motion’s court’s contrary ruling, runs afoul of the court ’s coordinate jurisdiction rule

. See Common wealth v. Starr , 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995).J

- A14039

- 23

- 4

-

shall list t his appeal before the next available argument panel convening in
the Eastern District.
Case remanded with instructions. Court jurisdiction retained. Case continued to a future argument panel

.