Court Opinion

ID: 9867891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 17:11:20.391285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:46.528664
License: Public Domain

J-A20005-23

                                   2023 PA Super 184

  JACOB E. GODLOVE, SR. AND KAYLA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  KELLEY IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND AS              :        PENNSYLVANIA
  ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF               :
  JACOB E. GODLOVE, JR.                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :   No. 102 MDA 2023
                                               :
                                               :
  JOHN HUMES AND MOUNTAIN VIEW                 :
  TRANSPORTATION, LLC., AND                    :
  COUNTY HALL INSURANCE COMPANY                :
  INC.                                         :

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County
                       Civil Division at No(s): 2022-00501

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

OPINION BY PANELLA, P.J.:                      FILED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2023

       Jacob E. Godlove, Sr. and Kayla Kelley in her individual capacity and as

administrator of the estate of Jacob E. Godlove, Jr. (collectively “Appellants”),

appeal from the order granting the preliminary objections filed by Risk

Retention Groups and County Hall Insurance Company, dismissing Appellants’

declaratory judgment action. Appellants were seeking a declaration that a

policy, specifically the MCS-90 endorsement which addresses motor carrier

policies of insurance for public liability, issued by County Hall to its insureds,

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A20005-23

John R. Humes and Mountain View Transportation, LLC, covers the vehicle in

issue in the underlying civil action for damages filed by Appellants against

Humes and Mountain View. Upon review, we reverse.

     We defer to the trial court’s concise statement of the relevant facts:

           The facts giving rise to this matter occurred on October 22,
     2019. Defendant John R. Humes (hereinafter "Defendant Humes")
     drove a commercial truck owned by Defendant Mountain View
     Transportation, LLC, (hereinafter "Defendant Mountain View") and
     struck a small pickup driven by Plaintiff Jacob E. Godlove, Sr.,
     while Plaintiff Kayla Kelley was his passenger (hereinafter
     "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs instituted a personal injury case' in Franklin
     County (hereinafter "underlying action") via Writ of Summons on
     April 30, 2021. Defendants Humes and Mountain View were
     served and County Hall initially defended them under a
     reservation of rights.

           Thereafter, Defendant County Hall filed a Declaratory
     Judgment action (concerning their coverage obligations for the
     accident) in federal court on October 14, 2021. Defendant County
     Hall named only Humes and Mountain View as defendants in its
     federal action; Plaintiffs were not permitted to intervene. Humes
     and Mountain View did not litigate the federal action and
     Defendant County Hall moved for a default judgment in February
     2022.

           Plaintiffs instituted this state court Declaratory Judgment
     action via Complaint on February 21, 2022. Plaintiffs sought a
     determination of whether Defendant Humes was a permissive
     driver under the County Hall commercial insurance policy
     purchased by Defendant Mountain View. All Defendants were
     served. Defendants Humes and Mountain View have no counsel of
     record and have not participated in this case thus far.

           After two complaints and corresponding sets of preliminary
     objections, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Declaratory

                                      -2-
J-A20005-23

       Judgment Complaint on May 31, 2022.[1] Defendant County Hall
       filed the subject preliminary objections and brief in support on
       June 22, 2022. Plaintiffs filed their response on July 11, 2022[,]
       and their brief in opposition on August 16, 2022. Oral argument
       was held on October 6, 2022. On December 29, 2022, [the trial
       court], via Order, sustained Defendant County Hall's preliminary
       objections and dismissed Plaintiffs' case with prejudice. Plaintiffs
       appealed on January 6, 2023[,] and filed their Statement of Errors
       Complained of on Appeal on January 17, 2023.

Trial Court Opinion, 2/20/2023, at 1-3 (footnotes and citations to the record

omitted). The trial court further stated:

       Shortly after their appeal in this matter, Plaintiffs obtained and
       entered of record a "Non Execution, Assignment, Settlement and
       Stipulation to Consent Judgment" with Defendants Humes and
       Mountain View in the underlying case (Franklin County Docket
       2021-1310) on January 16, 2023. A judgment of $1,000,000 was
       entered of record on January 17, 2023.

Id., at 9, n.4.

       On appeal, Appellants raise two arguments, both of which address the

issue of whether it was legally and procedurally permissible for Appellants, as

the injured parties in a related civil action, to institute this declaratory

judgment action against the alleged tortfeasors’ insurance carrier.

       A. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting the
       Appellee's County Hall Insurance Company's preliminary
____________________________________________

1 In the Second Amended Declaratory Judgment Complaint, Appellants stated

that they had filed an Amended Complaint in the underlying action on
September 16, 2021, against Humes and Mountain View; the Amended
Complaint was attached as Exhibit C. See Second Amended Declaratory
Judgment Complaint, ¶ 11 and Exhibit C. The Amended Complaint against
Humes and Mountain View indicated that it was docketed to No. 2021-1310 in
the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Pennsylvania, and included
allegations in reference to the automobile accident which occurred on October
22, 2019.

                                           -3-
J-A20005-23

      objections and dismissing the Plaintiffs' /Appellants' case with
      prejudice because the Appellants are entitled to pursue the case
      under Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent Allstate
      Insurance v Stinger, 163 A.2d 74 (Pa. 1960).

      B. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in granting the
      Appellee's County Hall Insurance Company's preliminary
      objections and dismissing the Plaintiffs' /Appellants' case with
      prejudice because the Pennsylvania Declaratory Judgment Act
      mandates for all interested parties to be included a declaratory
      judgment action. 75 Pa. C.S. § 7540.

Appellants’ Brief at i-ii.

      We review an order sustaining preliminary objections seeking dismissal

of an action de novo:

             Our standard of review of an order of the trial court
      overruling or [sustaining] preliminary objections is to determine
      whether the trial court committed an error of law. When
      considering the appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary
      objections, the appellate court must apply the same standard as
      the trial court.

            Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer test the
      legal sufficiency of the complaint. When considering preliminary
      objections, all material facts set forth in the challenged pleadings
      are admitted as true, as well as all inferences reasonably
      deducible therefrom. Preliminary objections which seek the
      dismissal of a cause of action should be sustained only in cases in
      which it is clear and free from doubt that the pleader will be unable
      to prove facts legally sufficient to establish the right to relief. If
      any doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, it
      should be resolved in favor of overruling the preliminary
      objections.

Fiedler v. Spencer, 231 A.3d 831, 835-36 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations

omitted). This Court will reverse the trial court's decision regarding

preliminary objections only where there has been an error of law or abuse of

discretion. When sustaining the preliminary objections will result in the denial

                                      -4-
J-A20005-23

of claim or a dismissal of suit, the preliminary objections may be sustained

only where the case is free and clear of doubt. Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540,

547-548 (Pa. Super. 2014).

      As stated above, this case involves a declaratory judgment action to

determine the scope of liability of County Hall to its insureds, Humes and

Mountain View, because the policy in issue allegedly covers the vehicle

involved in the accident which occurred on October 22, 2019. The underlying

civil action, docketed to No. 2021-1310 in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, was

referenced and included as an exhibit to the Appellants’ pleadings.

      It is well settled that the proper construction of a policy of insurance is

resolved as a matter of law in a declaratory judgment action. The Declaratory

Judgments Act is available to interpret the obligations of the parties under an

insurance contract, including the question of whether an insurer has a duty to

defend as well as a duty to indemnify a party making a claim under the policy.

See Erie Insurance Exchange v. Lobenthal, 114 A.3d 832, 836 (Pa. Super.

2015).

      Both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify may be
      resolved in a declaratory judgment action.

         It is well established that an insurer's duties under an
         insurance policy are triggered by the language of the
         complaint against the insured. In determining whether an
         insurer's duties are triggered, the factual allegations in the
         underlying complaint are taken as true and liberally
         construed in favor of the insured.

                                      -5-
J-A20005-23

      Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh,
      83 A.3d 418, 421 (Pa.Super.2013) (citation and quotation marks
      omitted).

         The obligation of an insurer to defend an action against the
         insured is fixed solely by the allegations in the underlying
         complaint. As long as a complaint alleges an injury which
         may be within the scope of the policy, the insurer must
         defend its insured until the claim is confined to a recovery
         the policy does not cover.

      Erie Ins. Exchange v. Fidler,             808   A.2d   587,   590
      (Pa.Super.2002) (citations omitted).

American Nat. Property and Cas. Companies v. Hearn, 93 A.3d 880, 883-

884 (Pa. Super. 2014) (some citations omitted).

      “Declaratory judgments are nothing more than judicial searchlights,

switched on at the behest of a litigant to illuminate an existing legal right,

status or other relation.” Wagner v. Apollo Gas Co., 582 A.2d 364, 365 (Pa.

Super. 1990) (citation omitted). The Declaratory Judgments Act empowers

courts “to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not

further relief is or could be claimed,” and these declarations “have the force

and effect of a final judgment or decree.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7532.

      To bring a declaratory judgment action,

      there must exist an actual controversy[, as] [d]eclaratory
      judgment is not appropriate to determine rights in anticipation of
      events which may never occur. It is an appropriate remedy only
      where a case presents antagonistic claims indicating imminent
      and inevitable litigation.

Bromwell v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 716 A.2d 667, 670 (Pa. Super. 1998

(citation omitted)).

                                    -6-
J-A20005-23

      As stated by the trial court, there is no question that Appellants have

reached a settlement with Humes and Mountain View, have entered a

judgment against them, and have taken an assignment from them in order to

pursue this declaratory judgment action against County Hall. The action

docketed to No. 2021-1310 in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County

was referenced in and attached to a pleading filed by Appellants, and the

settlement, judgment and assignment in that case was detailed by the trial

court in its opinion filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. See Trial Court Opinion,

2/20/2023, at 9, n.4. Pursuant to our Rules of Evidence,

      [t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to
      reasonable dispute because it:

            (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial
            jurisdiction; or

            (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources
            whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Pa. R.E. Rule 201(b). Additionally, Judicial Notice may be taken by the court

on its own but must be taken “if a party requests it and the court is supplied

with the necessary information.” Pa. R.E. Rule 201(c).

      As Appellants have acquired a judgment against Humes and Mountain

View and have received an assignment from them of their rights under the

County Hall policy, there is no issue of non-justiciability which existed in the

Bromwell and Avrich cases. Because this was the only basis for the trial

court’s dismissal of Appellants’ Declaratory Judgment action, the Order of

December 29, 2022, is reversed and this matter is remanded to the Court of

                                     -7-
J-A20005-23

Common Pleas of Franklin County for proceedings consistent with this

decision.

      Judgment reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.

      President Judge Emeritus Stevens joins the Opinion.

      Judge Murray concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 09/26/2023

                                      -8-