Court Opinion

ID: 9702013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:49:23.361287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:32.229521
License: Public Domain

*458CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result offered by the Majority and write separately to disassociate myself from the discussion contained within footnotes two and three. Specifically, I am troubled by the lengthy discussion in these footnotes concerning issues never raised in this case.
This Court has steadfastly refused to “review questions that were neither raised, tried, nor considered in the trial court.” Dollar Bank v. Swartz, 540 Pa. 369, 657 A.2d 1242 (1995) (citing Reilly by Reilly v. SEPTA, 507 Pa. 204, 214-215, 489 A.2d 1291, 1296 (1985).) In these footnotes, the Majority, in my view, makes errors and draws conclusions about unsettled areas of law.
For example, in footnote two the Majority claims that “[tjhere is no basis in law for a [bad faith garnishment action].... ” Op. at p. 453. Although this Court has never addressed this issue and does not now have the opportunity to address it here because the issue was not raised, this type of action has been recognized by the lower courts of our Commonwealth. See, e.g., Shearer v. Reed, 286 Pa.Super. 188, 428 A.2d 635 (1981). Thus, the statement that there is “no basis in law” for this action is plainly inaccurate. The Majority’s statement in footnote three that “[t]here is no common law remedy in Pennsylvania for bad faith on the part of insurers” is also an incorrect assessment of law. Granted, a common law action for bad faith based on tort law was rejected by our Court. D'Ambrosio v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, 494 Pa. 501, 431 A.2d 966 (1981). Yet, for almost four decades, we have recognized a common law action for bad faith sounding in contract. Cowden v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 389 Pa. 459, 134 A.2d 223 (1957) (recognizing bad faith action against insurance company for failure to settle within policy limits).
Furthermore, I am troubled by the Majority’s disposition in these footnotes of certain issues on which this Court has not spoken definitively. For example, in footnote two, the Majority cites Gray v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 422 Pa. *459500, 223 A.2d 8 (1966) for the proposition that an actual assignment from Beane to Johnson was required here. In Gray, the tortfeasor had in fact assigned his bad faith cause of action against his insurance company to the injured party; Gray did not, however, mandate such an assignment. Furthermore, I am uncertain as to the applicability of Gray since the cause of action in Gray was one in assumpsit, and thus a direct action, rather than garnishment as was the case here. It would seem that this distinguishing fact may indeed be critical and render Gray inapplicable under the present facts even if the issue had been raised here.
It is beyond peradventure that the Majority’s discussion in footnotes two and three is dictum and devoid of precedential authority. Thus, in my view, these footnotes do not constitute a change in the law of this Commonwealth as to the validity of garnishment actions for bad faith claims.