IDS Property Casualty Ins. v. Piotrowski, J. ( 2019 )

J-A04016-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
INSURANCE COMPANY, : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
: No. 2546 EDA 2018
JOANNE D. PIOTROWSKI AND :
STEPHEN X. PIOTROWSKI :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered, September 18, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Civil Division at No(s): 2016-02339-MJ.
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED MAY 28, 2019
IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company appeals the judgment
entered against it in this declaratory judgment action for underinsured motor
vehicle benefits. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court declared that Joanne
D. and Stephen X. Piotrowski were entitled to proceed against IDS for
underinsured motorist benefits, and, further, that IDS was entitled to a credit
only of $100,000, the tortfeasor’s policy limit in the underlying case. We
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
The stipulated facts are fully set forth in the trial court’s opinion. Briefly,
we note that Joanne Piotrowski was injured when the car she was driving was
hit by a car driven by Ruth Edwards. At the time, Edwards was insured by
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under a policy with bodily
*Retired Senior Judge specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04016-19
injury liability limits of $100,000. The Piotrowskis filed suit to recover
damages.
Prior to trial, State Farm offered the Piotrowskis $36,001.00 to settle
the case, which the Piotrowskis rejected. State Farm assured Edwards that if
the case did not settle, State Farm would pay any amount awarded even if it
exceeded her policy limits. Subsequently, a jury returned a verdict in favor
of the Piotrowskis in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000). After trial,
but prior to the court’s decision on Edwards’ post-trial motion, the Piotrowskis
settled the case with Edwards for $485,000.
Thereafter, the Piotrowskis sought underinsured motorist benefits under
their policy with IDS. IDS filed the instant suit seeking a declaration that IDS
was entitled to a credit of $485,000 for sums paid to the Piotrowskis for their
injuries arising out of the automobile accident, rather than only the policy
limits of $100,000, as asserted by the Piotrowskis. Following discovery, IDS
additionally argued that Edwards was not an underinsured motorist. IDS
sought to amend its complaint to include this, but the trial court never acted
on its request.
Following a bench trial, the court first noted that IDS never alleged in
its complaint that Edwards’ vehicle was not an underinsured motor vehicle.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/17, at 5. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded
that Edwards’ vehicle was an underinsured motor vehicle under Pennsylvania
law and the IDS policy; the liability limit under Edwards’ policy was $100,000
and never changed, even by the assurance letter. This limit was insufficient
-2-
J-A04016-19
to cover Ms. Piotrowski’s damages. Thus, Ms. Piotrowski was entitled to
proceed against IDS on her UIM claim. Id. at 5, 6-7.
Additionally, the trial court concluded that IDS was entitled only to a
credit of the limit of liability under Edward’s policy in the amount $100,000.
Id. at 6-7. Although State Farm paid a total amount of $485,000 to the
Piotrowskis, the trial court concluded that the additional amount paid over and
above the policy limits, $385,000, “was not made because of Piotrowski’s
bodily injury, but rather to avoid a potential bad faith claim, including punitive
damages.” According to the IDS policy, IDS was entitled to a credit only for
“the amount paid for bodily injury”. Id. at 6 -7. Thus, the trial court allowed
a credit for $100,000. Following the denial of IDS’ post-trial motions, this
timely appeal followed.
IDS raises the following two issues for our consideration:
1. Did the trial court err in declaring that Ruth Edwards was an
underinsured motorist even though State Farm was obligated
to pay the full amount of any judgment entered against her
and in favor of the Piotrowskis?
2. Did the trial court err in refusing to declare that the credit
available to IDS with respect to the claim for underinsured
motorist benefits asserted by the Piotrowskis was $485,000
when they stipulated that they were paid that amount in
settlement of their personal injury claim against Edwards and
the policy issued to the Piotrowskis expressly provided that IDS
was entitled to a credit for all amounts paid to the Piotrowskis
by or on behalf of the tortfeasor?
See IDS’ Brief at 2.
-3-
J-A04016-19
Our standard of review in a declaratory judgment action is narrow. “In
reviewing a declaratory judgment action, we are limited to determining
whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of
law. An appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial
court if the determination of the trial court is supported by competent
evidence.” Vernon Twp. Volunteer Fire Dept. v. Connor, 855 A.2d 873,
879 (Pa. 2004). “We review the decision of the trial court as we would a
decree in equity and set aside factual conclusions only where they are not
supported by adequate evidence. We give plenary review, however, to the
trial court's legal conclusions.” Universal Health Services, Inc. v.
Pennsylvania Property and Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 884 A.2d 889, 892
(Pa.Super.2005) (internal citations omitted).
Upon consideration of the record, the parties’ briefs, the trial court’s
opinion and applicable law, we conclude that the trial court, in its decision
dated September 13, 2017, cogently addressed the issues raised by IDS on
appeal, and that no further discussion by this Court is necessary. Accordingly,
we adopt the trial court’s opinion entered on September 13, 2017 as our own
(finding Ruth Edwards was an underinsured motorist and IDS was entitled to
credit of $100,000 on the Piotrowski’s claim). In the event of future
proceedings, the litigants shall attach a copy of the opinion to any filings.
Judgment affirmed.
-4-
J-A04016-19
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/28/19
-5-