Court Opinion

ID: 9707754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:20:41.964531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:37.715086
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge,
concurring:
I join the majority Opinion but feel it necessary to again voice my dissatisfaction with our en banc Court’s decision in Ceresini v. Valley View Trailer Park Ephrata Inc., 380 Pa.Super. 416, 552 A.2d 258 (1988). As I said in Slater v. Pennsylvania Power Company, 383 Pa.Super. 509, 557 A.2d 368 (1989):
Although the delay damages had been determined in the trial court prior to the effective date of the new rule, our Court, in Ceresini v. Valley View Trailer Park Ephrata Inc., 380 Pa.Super. 416, 552 A.2d 258 (1988), found “the Rule applies to all actions pending at the trial level, or on appeal, in which the issue of delay damages has been preserved and not finally determined.” Id., 380 Pa.Superior Ct. at 419, 552 A.2d at 259.
While this holding is questionable in light of the explanatory comments to subdivision (f) of Rule 2381 (see Ceresini, dissenting opinion, Popovich, J.), we are bound by Ceresini, which treats this case as a “pending case on or after the effective date” of the new rule.

. The purpose of this provision is to indicate that the rule applies to pending as well as future actions but not to pending actions in which the damages for delay have been determined under the provisions and procedures of the Craig [512 Pa. 60, 515 A.2d 1350 (1986) ] case. Once damages for delay have been determined under Craig, those proceedings are final and are not to be reopened under this rule.
Explanatory Comment to Pa.R.C.P. 238(f).