Court Opinion

ID: 9697759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:28:42.719911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:35.144569
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority since the author, after a very careful analysis of the issues presented in this appeal, reaches the quite basic principle that issues of material fact may not be resolved by summary judgment.
I write only because it appears to me that the learned trial court improperly resolved by summary judgment the basic factual issue of whether the literature, in which HMO “guaranteed” and “assured” the quality of care provided to its subscribers, had been distributed to appellant or to other subscribers of HMO.
It might also be mentioned that while the court was understandably uncertain as to the theories upon which plaintiff was proceeding1, it appears that the amended complaint of plaintiff does contain factual averments supporting a breach of warranty claim. See: Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity v. University of Pennsylvania, 318 Pa.Super. 293, 298, 464 A.2d 1349, 1352 (1983) (“Pennsylva*623nia is a fact-pleading state.”). Accord: Smith v. Brown, 283 Pa.Super. 116, 119, 423 A.2d 743, 745 (1980).

. The trial court noted in its opinion that "the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint is that HMO of PA guaranteed or warranted the quality of care provided---- Plaintiffs theory of recovery ... is not entirely clear. A reading of the complaint suggests Plaintiff is proceeding upon grounds of corporate liability. However, in his answer to the motion of HMO of PA for summary judgment, plaintiff contends HMO of PA is vicariously liable through ostensible agency."