Court Opinion

ID: 9906303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 17:10:04.974539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:14.262052
License: Public Domain

J-A28004-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  KELLY DUTTON                                 :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :          PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY                   :     No. 3110 EDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered November 21, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 220300615

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                               FILED DECEMBER 1, 2023

        Appellant, Kelly Dutton, appeals pro se from the order entered on

November 21, 2022, which granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings

filed   by   Defendant      Foremost     Insurance    Company   (hereinafter   “the

Defendant”) and dismissed Appellant’s complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

        The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

          On March 4, 2022, [Appellant] filed a complaint against [the
          Defendant] wherein she asserted a claim of breach of
          contract against [the Defendant] related to her homeowners’
          insurance policy (“the Policy”) claim. According to [Appellant,
          the Defendant] breached the Policy by failing to pay the full
          amount of her claim involving property damages from a fire
          at her residence that occurred on January 2, 2020.
          [Appellant] claim[ed] that [the Defendant] closed her file and
          refused to continue to negotiate a settlement.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A28004-23

         On April 4, 2022, [the Defendant] filed an answer with new
         matter[,] asserting that [Appellant’s] claim was barred by the
         suit limitation contained in the Policy. [Appellant] did not file
         a reply to [the Defendant’s] new matter.

         On October 14, 2022, [the Defendant] filed a motion for
         judgment on the pleadings[, again contending that
         Appellant’s claim was barred by the one-year suit limitation
         in the Policy. Appellant] filed a response to [the Defendant’s]
         motion and argue[d] that [the Defendant’s] motion [was] an
         attempt to circumvent arbitration of her claim. On November
         [21,] 2022, the trial court granted [the Defendant’s] motion
         for judgment on the pleadings. On December 8, 2022,
         [Appellant] filed a timely appeal of the [trial court’s] order.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/23, at 1 (citations and some capitalization omitted).

      A review of Appellant's brief does not reveal any comprehensible legal

argument or claim of error. Further, the argument section of the brief is two

sentences long and contains no legal argument, reference to the record, or

citations to case law. See Appellant’s Brief at 6. “[I]t is a well settled principle

of appellate    jurisprudence    that   undeveloped claims      are   waived   and

unreviewable on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Clayton, 816 A.2d 217, 221

(Pa. 2002). Accordingly, we find that Appellant’s claim on appeal is waived.

See also Commonwealth v. Postie, 110 A.3d 1034, 1041 n.8 (Pa. Super.

2015) (“[a]lthough this Court is willing to construe liberally materials filed by

a pro se litigant, pro se status generally confers no special benefit upon an

appellant. Accordingly, a pro se litigant must comply with the procedural rules

set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of the Court”).

      Moreover, even if Appellant’s claim were not waived, it would fail, as it

is meritless. The trial court explained:

                                        -2-
J-A28004-23

       A party may move for judgment on the pleadings “after the
       pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to
       unreasonably delay trial.” Pa.R.C.P. 1034(a). Similar to a
       demurrer, a trial court may grant a motion for judgment on
       the pleadings where (1) there are no disputed issues of fact,
       and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
       of law. McLafferty v. Council for the Ass’n of Owners of
       Condo. No. One, Inc., 148 A.3d 802, 806 (Pa. Super.
       2016). In deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
       the trial court may only consider the pleadings and relevant
       documents, accepting as true all well pleaded statements of
       fact, admissions, and any documents properly attached to the
       pleadings of the party against whom the motion is filed. Id.
       at 806-807. The trial court should grant a motion for
       judgment on the pleadings only “when the moving party’s
       right to succeed is certain and the case is so free from doubt
       that [a] trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise.” Id. at
       807.

       Under Pennsylvania law, a standard fire insurance policy
       must include a one-year suit limitation clause. See 40 P.S.
       § 636. As set forth by statute: “no insurance company,
       association or exchange shall issue a policy affording fire
       insurance, as defined in this section, on property in this
       Commonwealth, unless such policy contains the following
       provisions as to such insurance: No suit or action on this
       policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in
       any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this
       policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced
       within twelve months next after inception of loss.” See 40
       P.S. § 636(2). “Such a statutory requirement can hardly be
       termed a ‘contract of adhesion,’ imposed unfairly by the
       stronger party upon the weaker. Rather, it represents a
       legislative determination of a reasonable period within which
       suits must be brought, a careful balancing of the interests of
       both insurers and insureds. The validity of this statutorily
       mandated provision has been consistently upheld.”
       Schreiber v. Pa. Lumberman’s Mut. Ins. Co., 444 A.2d
       647, 649 (Pa. 1982); see also Mail Quip, Inc. v. Allstate
       Ins. Co., 388 F.Supp.3d 433, 439 (3rd Cir. 2019) (suit
       limitations mandated by the legislature are distinguished
       from suit limitations that contractually modify the statute of
       limitations).

                                   -3-
J-A28004-23

        Here, [Appellant] filed her complaint on March 4, 2022.
        [Appellant’s] complaint alleged that [the Defendant]
        breached the fire insurance policy by failing to pay her
        homeowners’ insurance claim relating to fire damages that
        occurred at her property on January 2, 2020. The Policy,
        attached to [the Defendant’s] answer and new matter and
        motion for judgment on the pleadings, contained a suit
        limitation clause in Paragraph 8, which states that “suit must
        be brought within one year after the loss occurs.”

        The following facts are undisputed:        (1) as averred in
        [Appellant’s] complaint, the losses from the property damage
        occurred on January 2, 2020; (2) [Appellant’s] fire insurance
        policy contained the statutorily mandated suit limitation of
        one year, as set forth in Paragraph 8 of the Policy; and (3)
        [Appellant’s] complaint was filed on March 4, 2022, more
        than two years after her property damage loss occurred.
        Since [Appellant’s] property damage claim occurred on
        January 2, 2020, [Appellant’s] claim is barred by the Policy’s
        suit limitation clause contained in Paragraph 8.        Thus,
        [Appellant’s] lawsuit is time-barred by the [one-year] suit
        limitation provision contained in the Policy. Accordingly, the
        trial court properly granted [the Defendant’s] motion for
        judgment on the pleadings.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/23, at 2-3 (some capitalization omitted).

      We agree with the trial court’s able explanation and conclude that, even

if Appellant’s claim on appeal were not waived, it would fail, as it is meritless.

      Order affirmed.      Jurisdiction relinquished. Case struck from the

argument list.

                                      -4-
J-A28004-23

Date: 12/1/2023

                  -5-