Balk v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 20 December 1971
• Parties: James B. BALK, Appellant, and Joseph M. Balk v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Ed Morrow Ford, Inc., trading as Robin Ford.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 128

285 A.2d 128

446 Pa. 137

James B. BALK, Appellant, and Joseph M. Balk v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Ed Morrow Ford, Inc., trading as Robin Ford.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Dec. 20, 1971.

John Paul Curran, Upper Darby, for appellant

Stephen J. McEwen, Jr., Joseph P. Mylotte, McEwen, McEwen & Mylotte, Upper Darby, for appellee, Edward Morrow Ford, Inc., T/A Robin Ford.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and BARBIERI, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

POMEROY, Justice.

This is an appeal by James B. Balk, one of the two plaintiffs, from an order opening a default judgment against appellee Ed Morrow Ford, Inc., trading as Robin Ford, and decreeing a new trial because of excessiveness of the verdict.

The relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiff was injured on September 14, 1966 when the Ford automobile he was driving, owned by his father, Joseph M. Balk, went out of control on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The resulting accident was allegedly due to a defect in the steering mechanism. On August 30, 1968 suit was instituted by complaint against Ford Motor Company, as manufacturer, and Robin Ford, as dealer-seller, alleging that the personal injuries sustained by appellant, James Balk, and the property damage sustained by his father (the other plaintiff) were caused by both defendants or either of them in installing, and failing to discover, the defective steering mechanism, and in failing to warn plaintiffs of the existence thereof. On December 21, 1968, service of a reinstated complaint was made on both defendants. Neither defendant appeared and a default judgment was taken against both on January 27, 1969. No notice was given of the entry of this judgment. Trial for assessment of damages was listed for October 27, 1969. Pursuant to Delaware County Court Rule 277(a), requiring five days written notice of such a hearing, notice was sent by registered mail to appellee on October 21, 1969. The caption on this notice stated only 'Re: Balk v. Ford Motor Co.', and in no way referred to any action involving Robin Ford. Robin Ford did not appear and an ex parte hearing was held, at which time a jury assessed damages of $75,000 against the defendant appellee alone. ¹

After learning of the foregoing proceedings, appellee filed the petition in question on November 3, 1969. From the court's order opening the judgment as to Robin Ford and granting a new trial, James Balk has appealed to this Court. ²

As we have had occasion to reiterate several times recently, a petition to open a judgment is a matter of judicial discretion, is an appeal to the court's equitable powers, and is to be exercised only when three factors coalesce: (1) the petition has been promptly filed; (2) a meritorious defense can be shown; ³ (3) the failure to appear can be excused. A lower court's ruling opening or refusing to open will not be reversed unless there has been an error of law or a clear, manifest abuse of discretion. Kraynick v. Hertz, 443 Pa. 105, 277 A.2d 144 (1971); Fox v. Mellon, 438 Pa. 364, 264 A.2d 623 (1970); Atlas Aluminum Corporation v. Methods Research Products Co., 420 Pa. 407, 218 A.2d 244 (1966); Walters v. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co., 417 Pa. 438, 207 A.2d 852 (1965).

1) The requirement that the moving party act promptly has been met here. So far as appears, Robin Ford was totally unaware of the judgment against it until receipt of the letter of October 21, 1969, informing Robin Ford of the assessment hearing. This notice, however, referred only to the matter of 'Balk v. Ford Motor Company'. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that by waiting to open judgment until November 3, 1969, after it had learned that damages had been assessed against it, Robin Ford did not act promptly. Although its action came nine months after the entry of the default judgment, the trial court sitting as a court in equity was more strongly influenced, and we think properly, by the date when defendant actually learned of the situation rather than the date it could have learned of it through the constructive notice given by recording a judgment. Two cases cited by appellant where the opening of judgments was denied sixteen and ten months after having been entered are inapposite. Myers v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 429 Pa. 177, 240 A.2d 505 (1967); Baraonfski v. Malone, 371 Pa. 479, 91 A.2d 908 (1952). Both are marked by a deliberateness of delaying tactics on the part of the defendant which is not present here.

2) There can be little disagreement that a meritorious defense has been posited here. Appellee asserted in his petition to open, and neither plaintiff denied, that appellee is not the seller of the allegedly defective automobile. If this be true, the bottom drops out of appellant's case: no duty whatever was owing by Robin Ford as seller to either Balk the father as purchaser or Balk the son as user of the car; if allowed to enter this defense, appellee presumably will be quickly successful in the suit.

3) The third factor to be considered before opening a default judgment is whether the moving party can reasonably excuse or justify his failure to appear or answer. The record establishes that Robin Ford received service of the reinstated complaint on December 21, 1968, that it forwarded it to its counsel twelve days later, that on the same day counsel forwarded it by registered mail to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Robin Ford's insurer, which received it on Monday, January 6, 1969. From that point on until the entry of the jury verdict, there is no trace of the complaint and no action taken on behalf of appellee with respect to the suit. The insurance company's supervisor testified on deposition that mail relative to the company's claims business was always heavier on Mondays than during the rest of the week, and particularly heavy on this particular Monday, following as it did the New Year's holiday period. ⁴

The critical question, therefore, is whether an error of this sort by an insurance carrier, viz., losing a customer's court papers, constitutes sufficient legal justification to open a default judgment against the insured. This Court has held that it does. Scott v. McEwing, 337 Pa. 273, 10 A.2d 436 (1940), (suit papers mislaid by the insurance carrier); Myers v. Harrisburg Taxicab and Baggage Co., Inc., 368 Pa. 20, 82 A.2d 14 (1951) (insurance company vainly searching for lawyer who had been elected judge); Fox v. Mellon, Supra, (claims office manager erroneously assumed that he had ample time to enter an appearance). But see Colacioppo v. Holcombe, 166 Pa.Super. 186, 70 A.2d 452 (1949); Murphy v. Smith, 44 Wash. County, 90, affirmed Per curiam, 415 Pa. 512, 204 A.2d 275 (1964), which, however, appear to be marked by a deliberateness of misconduct on the part of the insurance company which is not present here.

Appellant's final contention is that a court should utilize its equitable powers and refuse to open a default judgment where there has been detrimental reliance by the plaintiff on the failing of the defendant to appear and answer. We agree with ...