Egan, R. v. Allstate Property ( 2023 )

J-A14039-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
ROBERT EGAN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY : No. 105 EDA 2023
INSURANCE COMPANY AND JACK :
RUANE :
Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): 201000413
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED JUNE 12, 2023
Robert Egan (“Egan”) appeals from the order sustaining preliminary
objections in the form of a demurrer and dismissing the claims in his fifth
amended complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence by Allstate
Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Allstate”). We remand for a
supplemental trial court opinion.
The allegations of Egan’s fifth amended complaint (“the complaint”)1
relating to this appeal are as follows. Jack Ruane (“Ruane”), who issues
policies only for Allstate, issued a policy (“the policy”) for a property in
Boothwyn, Pennsylvania where Egan resided (“the property”); the policy
provided coverage only if Egan resided at the property. See Fifth Amended
____________________________________________
1 The trial court previously dismissed Egan’s assertions of bad faith against
Allstate and breach of contract against Ruane stated in Egan’s second
amended complaint. See Order, 6/15/21.
J-A14039-23
Complaint at ¶¶ 25-32 and Exhibit “A.” In May 2017, Egan left the property,
having told Ruane that he would be moving out and receiving Ruane’s
assurance that he would “take care of’” changes to the policy. See id. at 25-
31. In 2020, the property suffered fire damage and Allstate denied coverage
under the policy. See id. at 32-34.
Egan’s fifth amended complaint alleges that Allstate’s denial of coverage
constitutes a breach of an oral contract he made with Ruane, see id. at 36-
40; Ruane breached the oral contract by failing to make the requested
changes in the policy, see id. at 41-52; and Allstate and/or Ruane were
negligent resulting in the denial of coverage. See id. at 53-65.
Allstate and Ruane filed preliminary objections to the complaint. The
trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed Egan’s three
claims with prejudice.2 Egan timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Rule
1925(b) statement challenging the court’s decision to sustain the preliminary
objections to the claims in the fifth amended complaint and the claims of bad
faith by Allstate and breach of contract by Ruane in the second amended
complaint. See Egan’s Brief at 7-25.
The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion but did not address the merits
of any of Egan’s substantive claims except to state that Egan’s negligence
____________________________________________
2 The court had previously dismissed the claims of bad faith by Allstate and
breach of contract by Ruane asserted in the second amended complaint. See
Order, 6/15/21.
-2-
J-A14039-23
claim failed to assert any duty Ruane owed to Egan. See Trial Court Opinion,
2/27/23, at 4 (unnumbered). The opinion does not address the breach of
contract claim based on the alleged oral contract or the bad faith claim; it
states only that Egan cannot recover because he did not reside at the property
at the time of damage. See id. at 6-7 (unnumbered). We cannot review the
merits of Egan’s claims without the trial court’s opinion addressing the merits
of Egan’s claims.3
Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to file, within thirty days, a
supplemental opinion addressing all issues raised in Egan’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. We direct this Court’s prothonotary to issue, upon receipt of the
trial court’s supplemental opinion, a new briefing schedule. Furthermore, we
direct that upon receipt of all necessary filings and briefs, the Prothonotary
____________________________________________
3 The trial court declined to review the merits of Egan’s claims because Egan
filed his fifth amended complaint more than twenty days after the dismissal
of the fourth amended complaint without leave of court, in violation of
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(e). See Trial Court Opinion, 2/27/23, at 5-6. The trial court
did not cite Rule 1028(e) when it granted Allstate and Ruane’s preliminary
objections to Egan’s Fifth Amended Complaint. See Order, 11/28/22.
Allstate had previously filed in the motions court, a motion to dismiss Egan’s
action with prejudice that asserted as the basis for relief Egan’s failure to
comply with Rule 1028(e). See Motion to Dismiss Action with Prejudice,
6/6/22, at 4-5. The motions court denied the motion. See Order, 11/7/22.
Accordingly, the trial court’s assertion in its Rule 1925(a) opinion that a
violation of Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(e) required sustaining preliminary objections in
the form of a demurrer and dismissing Egan’s complaint after the motion’s
court’s contrary ruling, runs afoul of the court’s coordinate jurisdiction rule.
See Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995).
-3-
J-A14039-23
shall list this appeal before the next available argument panel convening in
the Eastern District.
Case remanded with instructions. Court jurisdiction retained. Case
continued to a future argument panel.
-4-