Shrom,T. v. PA Underground Storage Tank, Pet ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    MIDDLE DISTRICT
    DR. TIMOTHY AND DEBRA SHROM,                    :   No. 500 MAL 2021
    :
    Respondents                :
    :   Petition for Allowance of Appeal
    :   from the Order of the
    v.                                :   Commonwealth Court
    :
    :
    PENNSYLVANIA UNDERGROUND                        :
    STORAGE TANK INDEMNIFICATION                    :
    BOARD,                                          :
    :
    Petitioner                 :
    ORDER
    PER CURIAM
    AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal
    is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:
    a.     In a matter of first impression before this Court and of substantial public
    importance, did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the decision of
    the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board which correctly held
    that Respondents, Dr. Timothy and Debra Shrom failed to satisfy their
    heavy burden of establishing eligibility for the payment of remediation costs
    by the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund where it is
    undisputed that the underground storage tanks on the Respondents’
    property were not registered and the required registration fee was not paid
    at the time the release as discovered?
    b.     Did the Commonwealth Court’s Order conflict with other relevant appellate
    court authority, particularly Luther P. Miller v. Underground Storage Tank
    Indemnification Bd., 
    965 A.2d 398
     (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009), which is
    substantially factually identical to the instant case, and with other existing
    case, statutory, and regulatory law, in its characterization of the Board’s
    denial of the Shroms’ claim for remediation costs due to the failure to
    register the USTs as an unpromulgated, de facto regulation?
    c.   In a matter of substantial public importance due to its potential to result in
    the Fund’s insolvency, did the Commonwealth Court err in rejecting the
    Board’s finding that the Fund relies upon Pennsylvania Department of
    Environmental Protection registrations in billing the necessary fees to keep
    the Fund solvent?
    [500 MAL 2021] - 2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 500 MAL 2021 (Granted)

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/16/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/16/2022