United Educators Insurance v. Selective Insurance ( 2017 )

J-A02029-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
UNITED EDUCATORS INSURANCE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY : No. 1676 EDA 2016
OF AMERICA :
Appeal from the Order May 2, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 00216
BEFORE: OTT, RANSOM, and FITZGERALD*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY RANSOM, J.: FILED APRIL 18, 2017
Appellant, United Educators Insurance (“United”), appeals from the
order entered May 2, 2016, which granted preliminary objections filed on
behalf of Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) and
dismissed United’s complaint with prejudice. We reverse and remand for
further proceedings.
In March 2016, United commenced this declaratory judgment action.1
Selective responded with preliminary objections premised upon the
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
The underlying dispute arose when an individual suffered personal injuries
at a Boy Scout camp held at Keystone College. Following negotiations, the
Boy Scouts settled their exposure, leaving Keystone as the sole defendant.
Further settlement negotiations were unsuccessful and precipitated the
current, coverage dispute between Selective, Keystone’s primary insurer,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A02029-17
pendency of duplicative litigation proceeding in federal court.2 See
Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(6). As noted, the trial court granted the preliminary
objections and dismissed the complaint. See Trial Ct. Order, 05/02/2016.
On May 27, 2016, United timely appealed. However, on June 2, 2016,
the federal court determined that it was without subject matter jurisdiction
and, therefore, dismissed the federal action. See Trial Ct. Op., 06/14/2016.
Accordingly, the trial court has requested that its May 2, 2016 order be
reversed and this matter remanded for further proceedings. Id.
In light of the unique procedural history of this case, we agree.
Notably, absent further proceedings in the Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas, the parties’ dispute will go unresolved. Though our research has
revealed no precedent directly on point, it is self-evident that a court,
properly authorized to hear a dispute, need not defer to a prior pending
action that has been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. See generally
Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 160 A.2d 549, 554 (Pa. 1960) (observing, in the
context of a forum non conveniens dispute, “the action will not be dismissed
in any event unless an alternative forum is available to the plaintiff”);
Goodman v. Pizzutillo, 682 A.2d 363, 367-68 (Pa. Super. 1996).
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
and United, Keystone’s excess insurer. See United’s Complaint,
03/07/2016, at ¶¶ 1-69.
2
The federal matter was captioned at Selective Insurance Company of
America v. United Educators Risk Retention Group, No. 2:15-cv-05974
(E.D.Pa. 2015).
-2-
J-A02029-17
Accordingly, we reverse the order entered May 2, 2016, and remand for
further proceedings.
Order reversed; case remanded for further proceedings; jurisdiction
relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/18/2017
-3-