Digging Beyond 'Conclusory' Trial Court Opinion, Superior Court Upholds $750K Judgment
More than two years after vacating a $750,000 bench verdict and calling for a new trial because of what it said was a "conclusory" opinion by the trial judge, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, taking a second look at the case on remand from the state Supreme Court, has affirmed the lower court's judgment.
June 27, 2019 at 01:54 PM
7 minute read
More than two years after vacating a $750,000 bench verdict and calling for a new trial because of what it said was a “conclusory” opinion by the trial judge, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, taking a second look at the case on remand from the state Supreme Court, has affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Last October, in Dolan v. Hurd Millwork, the justices unanimously reversed a September 2017 ruling in which the Superior Court said it was forced to vacate the judgment and order a new trial because the trial judge who rendered the verdict failed to adequately explain his reasoning and had since retired from the bench.
Reexamining the case with instructions from the Supreme Court to determine whether the trial judge's factual findings were supported by competent evidence, a panel of Superior Court President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman, Judge Anne Lazarus and Senior Judge William Platt affirmed the judgment in a June 21 opinion, finding that “none of appellants' claims on appeal merits relief.”
According to court documents, now-former Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge James F. Proud entered a $500,000 general verdict in favor of plaintiffs Leo Dolan Jr. and Cherie Dolan and against defendants Bentley Homes, Garvin Mitchell Corp., Chadwell Associates, Chadwell Realty and Harrison Community Association, in a dispute over construction defects in the Dolans' custom-built home. Proud did not, however, address the defendants' cross-claim against window installer Hurd Millwork Co., which had settled with the Dolans and did not participate in the trial.
Proud ultimately molded the verdict to $748,287 and the defendants—with the exception of Hurd Millwork—appealed. But the Superior Court, finding that Proud had issued only “a conclusory three-page opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),” remanded the case with instructions for Proud to file a supplemental opinion. By that point, however, Proud had retired and no one else on the bench was available to prepare a supplemental opinion.
The same three-judge Superior Court panel then issued a follow-up opinion Feb. 17, 2017, vacating Proud's verdict and remanding for a new trial.
“Because the trial judge failed to explain his decision throughout this case and is no longer on the bench to give us the information necessary for our review, the record remains insufficient for us to address appellants' claims,” Gantman said in that opinion.
But Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, writing for the high court in an Oct. 17 opinion, took guidance from the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in Armbruster v. Horowitz, which dealt with appellate review of a jury verdict where the trial judge resigned from the bench before he could rule on a post-trial weight of evidence motion.
The Armbruster court ultimately determined that ordering a new trial in such a case “would be extremely disruptive to the integrity of verdicts and to the judicial process.” Instead, the justices in that case said the appellate court should review the weight of evidence claim in the first instance.
“Applying the reasoning of Armbruster to this case we conclude that where a Rule 1925(a) opinion is deemed inadequate and the trial judge is unavailable to provide a supplemental opinion, the appellate court should review the legal issues raised in the appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal,” Mundy said. ”As the Superior Court has noted, when deciding issues of law an appellate court is not required to defer to the conclusions of a trial court. This is consistent with the fact that for questions of law, an appellate court's standard of review is de novo and its scope of review is plenary. Applying this standard and scope, the Superior Court will be able to review the entire record and ultimately determine whether the trial court correctly decided the legal issues raised in Bentley's appeal.”
To the extent that the appeal challenges any factual findings made by the trial judge, the appellate court should determine whether they're supported by competent evidence, Mundy added.
Mundy was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.
In its June 21 opinion affirming the trial court's judgment, the Superior Court rejected the defendants' arguments that the Dolans' claims sounded in contract rather than tort.
“According to appellee, appellants led him to believe the problems were isolated and fixable and appellants had made the necessary repairs, even though appellants knew the windows were defective, would cause systemic problems throughout appellee's entire home, and needed to be replaced—not 'repaired,'” Gantman said. “These allegations reach beyond the contractual obligations set forth in the parties' agreement of sale. Instead, the agreement of sale merely served as the vehicle to establish the ongoing relationship between the parties, during which appellants allegedly committed various torts. Consequently, the gist of the action doctrine did not bar appellee's tort claims.”
The panel also disagreed with the defendants' argument that the economic loss doctrine precluded the Dolans' claims, finding that the damages exceeded the costs to repair and replace the defective windows and that the damages involved the internal structures and personal property within the Dolans' home, not just the windows.
The panel also rejected the defendants' arguments that the Dolans' claims were time-barred because he became aware of problems with his windows in 2000 but did not file a writ of summons until 2005.
“The record shows appellee did not possess sufficient critical facts to put him on notice of a systemic problem in his home until 2005, when he observed the large green hole and subsequently learned of the litigation between appellants and Hurd Millwork,” Gantman said. “Thus, we see no reason to disturb the court's conclusion that the discovery rule tolled the applicable two-year statute of limitations concerning appellee's negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation/fraud claims.”
And while the defendants also contended that part of the $750,000 award improperly included punitive damages, Gantman said the record was clear that the award was made up entirely of compensatory damages.
“The court awarded appellee $500,000.00 in damages, evidencing only a compensatory damages award,” Gantman said. ”The court's award of delay damages in the amount of $248,287.67, on the basic award of $500,000.00 in damages, confirms the court awarded only compensatory damages, as delay damages are not available for a punitive damages award.”
The defendants also failed in their argument that Hurd Millwork should indemnify them in the case because it was the window installer
According to Gantman, ”the record shows appellants effectively abandoned their cross-claim.”
“Moreover, appellants had already reached a settlement with Hurd Millwork in October 2002, ostensibly for damages involving the defective windows installed in appellee's home,” Gantman said. ”Appellants cannot recover twice for the same claim.”
The Dolans' attorney, Anthony S. Pinnie of Pinnie Law Offices in Media, said, “It's been a long, strange trip. We're back to where we started. We think all along this was the right decision.”
Pinnie said he plans to file an amendment to the original judgment adding in additional interest that has accrued.
Counsel for all the defendants other than Hurd Millwork, Kimberly L. Russell of Kaplin Stewart in Blue Bell, could not be reached for comment. Counsel for Hurd Millwork, Jeanne Schubert Barnum of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis in Philadelphia, also could not be reached.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBlank Rome Snags Two Labor and Employment Partners From Stevens & Lee
4 minute read12-Partner Team 'Surprises' Atlanta Firm’s Leaders With Exit to Launch New Reed Smith Office
4 minute readMorgan Lewis Shutters Shenzhen Office Less Than Two Years After Launch
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250