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.
PA Manuf Assoc Ins Co, Aplt v. Matthey, Inc. & DEP
Citation: 188 A.3d 396Docket: 24 MAP 2017
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; July 18, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addresses an appeal by the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company (insurer) from a Commonwealth Court order that denied its motion for summary relief regarding its obligations to defend or indemnify Johnson Matthey, Inc. in a lawsuit initiated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) concerning environmental remediation costs. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgments Act, asserting it had no duty to defend Johnson Matthey in the DEP's action. In response, Johnson Matthey counterclaimed for a declaration affirming the insurer's duty to cover defense and indemnity costs, along with a breach of contract claim. The Commonwealth Court denied the insurer's motion, stating it was not entitled to the declaratory relief sought, but did not address Johnson Matthey's counterclaims. The Supreme Court found the order to be interlocutory and therefore unappealable at this time, leading to the quashing of the appeal. The Court emphasized that appellate jurisdiction generally applies to final orders that resolve all claims and parties, but exceptions exist under specific statutory provisions. The determination of the Court's jurisdiction is treated as a question of law, reviewed de novo with a plenary scope. Section 7532 of the Declaratory Judgments Act (DJA) empowers courts of record to declare rights and legal relations, with such declarations having the same effect as final judgments. In the case of *Northwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wicket*, the court held that an order declaring the rights of some plaintiffs against certain defendants was considered final and appealable, despite not resolving all claims or parties involved. The insurer argues that this precedent justifies jurisdiction over its appeal regarding the Commonwealth Court's denial of its motion for summary relief. Conversely, Johnson Matthey argues that the order is interlocutory and unappealable since it only partially declared the rights involved. The court references its decision in *United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, Inc. v. Department of Banking*, which established a two-part test for determining the appealability of declaratory orders: (1) the effect of the lower court’s decision on the litigation scope; and (2) the practical effect on the case’s ultimate outcome. Following the precedent set in *Pennsylvania Bankers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Banking*, the court concludes that since the Commonwealth Court's order only narrows the dispute without fully resolving the parties' claims for declaratory relief, it is interlocutory and not immediately appealable. The unresolved constitutionality of several provisions further supports this conclusion, aligning with the policy against piecemeal litigation. Therefore, the appeal is quashed. A dissenting statement from Chief Justice Saylor, joined by Justice Todd, is noted.