Court Opinion

ID: 9377025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 17:08:24.547542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.241234
License: Public Domain

J-A28002-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 CM REGENT INSURANCE COMPANY             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 A/S/O NAZARETH AREA SCHOOL              :        PENNSYLVANIA
 DISTRICT                                :
                                         :
                    Appellant            :
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :   No. 1297 EDA 2022
                                         :
 INTEGRITY ROOFING, INC.                 :

                Appeal from the Order Entered April 25, 2022
           In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
               Civil Division at No(s): C-0048-CV-2020-03548

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.:                         FILED MARCH 6, 2023

      CM Regent Insurance Company, acting as subrogee of Nazareth Area

School District (“NASD”), appeals from the order granting summary judgment

to Integrity Roofing, Inc., on CM Regent’s claim that Integrity Roofing was

negligent in failing to secure its worksite at NASD’s high school gym before a

rainstorm. On appeal, CM Regent argues the trial court erred in concluding a

waiver of subrogation clause in the contract between NASD and Integrity

Roofing precluded relief on CM Regent’s negligence claim. We disagree and

therefore affirm.

       NASD hired Integrity Roofing to replace the roof of its high school.

While Integrity Roofing was replacing the roof, a leak occurred, causing

damage to the school’s wooden gym floor. CM Regent paid for the repairs
J-A28002-22

pursuant to NASD’s insurance policy with CM Regent. CM Regent subsequently

initiated this action as a subrogee of NASD, asserting claims for breach of

contract and negligence based on allegations that Integrity Roofing had

negligently failed to properly secure the worksite before a rainstorm.

      After Integrity Roofing filed preliminary objections to CM Regent’s

complaint, CM Regent filed an amended complaint, asserting only a cause of

action for negligence based on the same allegations. The parties proceeded to

discovery. At the close of discovery, Integrity Roofing filed a motion for

summary judgment asserting that CM Regent’s claims were barred by the

waiver of subrogation clause in the contract between NASD and Integrity

Roofing. Specifically, that clause provided that all parties to the contract

waived any claims against other parties for damages to property that were

covered by insurance policies:

      [NASD] and [Integrity Roofing] waive all rights against (1) each
      other and any of their subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, agents
      and employees, each of the other … for damages caused by fire
      or other causes of loss to the extent covered by property insurance
      obtained pursuant to Paragraph 5.04 or other property insurance
      applicable to the Work, except such rights as they have to
      proceeds of such insurance held by [NASD] as fiduciary. … A
      waiver of subrogation shall be effective as to a person or entity
      even though that person or entity would otherwise have a duty of
      indemnification, contractual or otherwise, did not pay the
      insurance premium directly or indirectly, and whether or not the
      person or entity had an insurable interest in the property
      damaged.

Supplementary Conditions to Roof Replacement Contract, SC-5.06(I),

attached as Exhibit F to Integrity Roofing’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

                                     -2-
J-A28002-22

      The trial court agreed with Integrity Roofing and concluded CM Regent’s

claims were barred by the waiver of subrogation clause. See Opinion of Court,

4/25/22, at 5. CM Regent then filed this timely appeal. The trial court directed

CM Regent to file a statement of errors on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925,

and CM Regent timely complied.

      We review orders granting summary judgment for an error of law:

      In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, our scope of
      review is plenary, and our standard of review is the same as that
      applied by the trial court. Our Supreme Court has stated the
      applicable standard of review as follows: An appellate court may
      reverse the entry of a summary judgment only where it finds that
      the lower court erred in concluding that the matter presented no
      genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is clear that the
      moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In
      making this assessment, we view the record in the light most
      favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the
      existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved
      against the moving party. As our inquiry involves solely questions
      of law, our review is de novo.

      Thus, our responsibility as an appellate court is to determine
      whether the record either establishes that the material facts are
      undisputed or contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out
      a prima facie cause of action, such that there is no issue to be
      decided by the fact-finder. If there is evidence that would allow a
      fact-finder to render a verdict in favor of the non-moving party,
      then summary judgment should be denied.

Gerber v. Piergrossi, 142 A.3d 854, 858 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation and

brackets omitted).

      CM Regent first argues the trial court erred by failing to recognize the

claim in its amended complaint was for negligence, not breach of contract. CM

Regent contends waiver of subrogation clauses apply only to breach of

                                     -3-
J-A28002-22

contract claims, not negligence claims. See Appellant’s Brief, at 15 (citing

Community         Association       Underwriters        of   America     v.    Rhodes

Development Group, Inc., 488 Fed. Appx. 547 (3d Cir. 2012)).1 Contrary

to CM Regent’s assertion, however, a waiver of subrogation clause “is

enforceable whether or not such waiver relates to the contractor’s own

negligence.” Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. A. Richard Kacin, Inc.,

916 A.2d 686, 692 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted).

       CM    Regent      attempts    to   evade   the   applicability   of    Universal

Underwriters        by    drawing     a   distinction   between    misfeasance     and

nonfeasance. First, we are not persuaded that the alleged failure to properly

secure the worksite from a rainstorm is better classified as misfeasance as

opposed to nonfeasance. But even if it is, we find no basis in Universal

Underwriters to treat negligence claims based on allegations of misfeasance

differently from negligence claims based on allegations of nonfeasance.

Therefore, CM Regent’s first argument on appeal merits no relief.

       Next, CM Regent argues the waiver of subrogation clause is not

enforceable because it is contrary to public policy. CM Regent asserts that

Integrity Roofing “should not be immunized [pursuant to the waiver of

____________________________________________

1 “[A]bsent a United States Supreme Court pronouncement, the decisions of
federal courts are not binding on Pennsylvania state courts ….” NASDAQ OMX
PHLX, Inc. v. Pennmont Securities, 52 A.3d 296, 303 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Further, Community Association is not a published decision of the Third
Circuit. Therefore, it is not considered binding precedent even in that court.
See U.S. v. Lofton, 393 Fed. Appx. 872, 874 n.4 (3d Cir. 2010).

                                           -4-
J-A28002-22

subrogation clause], since the contract at issue affects all taxpayers in the

[NASD] and involves a public building which clearly is an interest of the

[Commonwealth].” Appellant’s Brief, at 20. The trial court does not address

this argument, because this argument was not fairly suggested by CM

Regent’s Rule 1925(b) statement:

     Specifically,   [CM     Regent]      challenges   the    following
     rulings/findings:

     (1)   Whether the [c]ourt erred by not assessing the “Gist-of-the-
           Action” doctrine pursuant to Bruno v. Erie [I]ns. Co., 106
           [A.3d] 48 (Pa. 2014), which analysis would have concluded
           that this case was the result of misfeasance and not non-
           feasance. Such an analysis would lead to the conclusion that
           the contractual “waiver of subrogation” defense is not
           applicable to the negligence tort claim. This analysis was
           appreciated in Community Ass’n Underwriters of
           America v. Rhodes Dev. Group, Inc., 488 F. App’x 547
           ([3d] Cir. 2012).

     (2)   Whether the [c]ourt’s decision was in error allowing a
           “Waiver of Subrogation” clause to dismiss a negligence
           claim, when the contractual waiver of subrogation clause at
           issue[] does not specifically delineate negligence as an item
           or circumstance to be waived.

Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, 6/3/22. This issue is

therefore waived. See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 277 A.3d 1190, 1195 (Pa.

Super. 2022) (holding that issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement are

waived).

     As neither of CM Regent’s issues on appeal merit relief, we affirm the

order granting summary judgment in favor of Integrity Roofing.

     Order affirmed.

                                    -5-
J-A28002-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/6/2023

                          -6-