Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rigidply Rafters v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
Citations: 457 A.2d 1318; 311 Pa. Super. 549; 1983 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2794
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; March 24, 1983; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed by the Brotherly Aid Liability Plan, Lancaster Mennonite Conference, against an order from February 1981 that granted summary judgment to Rigidply Rafters, Inc. regarding coverage under a no-fault motor vehicle insurance policy. The underlying issue arose from an accident involving Rigidply's employee, who allegedly caused injury to a third party while operating a crane attached to Rigidply's truck. Rigidply held two insurance policies: one from Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, which contained an automobile exclusion, and another no-fault policy from Brotherly Aid. Following the accident, both insurance companies denied coverage, leading Rigidply to seek a declaratory judgment to clarify coverage obligations. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Rigidply and Aetna regarding Brotherly Aid's liability but denied motions for summary judgment against Aetna. Brotherly Aid appealed the decision concerning its liability. Aetna moved to quash the appeal, arguing that the order was interlocutory due to the denial of summary judgment against it. The Superior Court granted Aetna's motion to quash the appeal regarding the denial but allowed the appeal concerning the summary judgment against Brotherly Aid to proceed. Ultimately, after reviewing the case, the court decided not to address the merits of Brotherly Aid's claims and instead quashed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of appellate jurisdiction limited to final orders. An order is considered interlocutory and not final unless it effectively dismisses a litigant from court, terminates the litigation, or resolves the entire case. The determination of a final appealable order requires an examination of its practical implications rather than just its technical effects. In this case, the court concluded that the order does not result in a final determination of liability for coverage against Brotherly Aid, as Aetna may still be found liable. The court clarified that it has not yet ruled on the coverage of Aetna's policy regarding the plaintiff's tractor trailer or the binding nature of oral representations made by Aetna; these issues remain to be resolved at trial. The order's practical outcome indicates that Brotherly Aid's liability could change based on Aetna's final determination, thus the judgment against Brotherly Aid is not final. Additionally, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035(b), a court can grant summary judgment regarding liability only, which is classified as interlocutory and nonappealable. Consequently, the appeal has been deemed premature and must be quashed. Judge DiSalle did not participate in this decision.