DocketNumber: No. 571; No. 621; No. 572; No. 622; No. 573; No. 620; No. 574; No. 619; No. 575; No. 618; No. 576; No. 623
Citation Numbers: 357 Pa. Super. 303, 515 A.2d 1379
Judges: Kelly, Montgomery, Tamilia
Filed Date: 9/12/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/18/2022
The consolidated appeals in this case began as six individual suits instituted by six customers of the Appellant Reynolds Disposal Company (hereafter referred to as “Reynolds Disposal”). Such actions involved requests for damages to be assessed against Reynolds Disposal and other Defendants for alleged harm to real estate and personal property from the backup of sewage and flooding into the basements of the Plaintiffs’ homes. Reynolds Disposal holds a certificate of convenience as a public utility and provides sanitary sewage disposal through a sanitary sewer system located in the community of Reynolds in Mercer County. Inter alia, the Plaintiffs asserted in their Complaints that the sewage system was inadequate.
Reynolds Disposal denied liability and joined fifty-two (52) property owners in the community of Reynolds as Additional Defendants. It alleged that any damage to the Plaintiffs from sewage backup and flooding was the result of overloading of the sewage system by surface and storm waters, and that the Additional Defendants had caused or allowed such waters to enter the system through the construction of
Because allegations of inadequacy of the sewer system were raised, the lower court initially stayed all proceedings until the Public Utility Commission reached a determination on the adequacy of the system.
When the cases were returned to the Court of Common Pleas, several Plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary judgment, which were denied. Motions for summary judgment by the Additional Defendants also came before the lower court. Upon consideration of various matters of record which will be further discussed herein, the court issued an Order dated March 27, 1985 granting summary judgment in favor of several of the Additional Defendants and denying such relief as to other Additional Defendants. It is from these rulings that the instant appeals are filed by Reynolds Disposal and by William H. Riggle and Karen L. Riggle.
We must reject that claim. Reynolds Disposal’s claims against the Additional Defendants were based upon allegations that they knew or should have known that they were allowing their storm, surface and ground water to enter and overload the sanitary sewer system.
The lower court specifically recognized the existence and application of the Nanty-Glo rule in its consideration of the motions for summary judgment. The excellent and detailed opinions authored by the court also show its thorough analysis of the complex factual details and legal issues presented thus far in this voluminous case.
The Order of the lower court is hereby affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is not retained.
. See Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. 1501 and Bell Telephone Co. of Pa. v. Sanner, 248 Pa.Super. 273, 375 A.2d 93 (1977).
. These appeals were originally filed in this Court. Although they were initially transferred to the Commonwealth Court, which had already reviewed the Public Utility Commission aspects of the case, the appeals were subsequently retransferred to this Court.
. The lower court denied requests for summary judgment as to Additional Defendants who were established to have known they were discharging such waters into the system, and as to those Additional Defendants who experienced flooding or other circumstances which created an issue as to whether they should have known such discharges might be occurring.
. The lower court authored an Opinion and Order dated March 27, 1985, a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 24, 1985, which rejected a motion for reconsideration and stay, and an Opinion dated June 20, 1985, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925.