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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37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

Property 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 Egan 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 the property, 

having told Ruane that he would be moving out and receiving Ruane’s 

assurance that he would “take care of’” changes to the policy. 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 the oral contract by failing to make the requested

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. The 

trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed Egan’s three 

claims with prejudice.2 Egan timely appealed 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 substantive 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). The opinion does not address the breach of 

contract claim 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 opinion 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 claims because Egan 

filed his fifth 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 granted Allstate and Ruane’s preliminary 

objections to Egan’s Fifth Amended Complaint. See Order, 11/28/22. 

Allstate had previously filed in the motions court, a motion to dismiss Egan’s 

action with prejudice that asserted 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 the motion. See Order, 11/7/22. 

Accordingly, the trial court’s assertion in its Rule 1925(a) opinion 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 Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995).
J-A14039-23

- 4 -

shall list this 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.