Glencannon Homes Ass'n, Inc. v. N. Strabane Twp.

• Decision Date: 22 April 2015
• Docket Number: Nos. 51 C.D. 2014,s. 51 C.D. 2014
• Citation: 116 A.3d 706
• Parties: GLENCANNON HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC. v. NORTH STRABANE TOWNSHIP, Canon–McMillan School District, McDowell Estates, L.P. and Heartland Homes, Inc. Appeal of: Canon–McMillan School District. Glencannon Homes Association, Inc., Appellant v. North Strabane Township, Canon–McMillan School District, McDowell Estates, L.P. and Heartland Homes, Inc. Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. v. North Strabane Township, Canon–McMillan School District, and Heartland Homes, Inc. Appeal of: North Strabane Township.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

116 A.3d 706

GLENCANNON HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC.

v.NORTH STRABANE TOWNSHIP, Canon–McMillan School District, McDowell Estates, L.P. and Heartland Homes, Inc.

Appeal of: Canon–McMillan School District.

Glencannon Homes Association, Inc., Appellant

v.North Strabane Township, Canon–McMillan School District, McDowell Estates, L.P. and Heartland Homes, Inc.

Glencannon Homes Association, Inc.

v.North Strabane Township, Canon–McMillan School District, and Heartland Homes, Inc.

Appeal of: North Strabane Township.

Nos. 51 C.D. 2014

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 12, 2014.

Decided April 22, 2015.

Robert A. Arcovio, Pittsburgh, for appellant North Strabane Township.

Brett W. Farrar, Pittsburgh, for appellant Canon–McMillan School District.

Marcia L.T. DePaula, Canonsburg, for appellee Glencannon Homes Association, Inc.

BEFORE: DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge, BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge, RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge, P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge.

Opinion

OPINION BY Judge PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH.

North Strabane Township (Township) and Canon–McMillan School District (School District) appeal from the June 25, 2013 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County (trial court), which denied their post-trial motions and molded the jury's verdict to the amount of $500,000.00 against the District and $500,000.00 against the Township, for a total of $1,000,000.00, in accordance with section 8553(b) of the statute commonly known as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA).¹ Glencannon Homes Association, Inc. (the Association) has filed a cross-appeal arguing that the trial court erred in imposing this statutory cap on damages and in failing to grant equitable relief.²

Facts/Procedural History

The Association's members are homeowners in the Glencannon residential development located in the Township. (Trial court op. at 1.) The Association maintains the Glencannon Pond Dam (Pond), a common area in the development consisting of a twenty-four-foot-high, 295–foot–long earthen embankment dam, which provides storm water retention and sedimentation control for the residential units above the Pond. (Trial court op. at 1.)

In 1996, the School District initiated plans for the development of a sports complex located immediately north of the Pond and McDowell Lane in the Township. (Trial court op. at 2; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 27a.) The School District leased the land from the Township. (R.R. at 96a, 114a, 119a–24a.) Pursuant to an agreement between the School District and the Township in 1997, the Township undertook improvements to McDowell Lane. (Trial court op. at 2.) Also in 1997, the Association became aware of excessive amounts of sediment accumulating in the Pond, as well as erosion. (Trial court op. at 1.) The Association had contracted for various services related to the Pond's maintenance since these problems were discovered, including having the Pond dredged in 2001. (Trial court op. at 1.) In 2009, the Association discovered that whenever it rained, water, sediment, and other debris flowed from the sports complex to McDowell Lane, and, ultimately, into the Pond. (Trial court op. at 2.)

On June 2, 2011, the Association filed a second amended complaint against the School District and the Township³ asserting claims of negligence and violations of the Storm Water Management Act (SWMA), Act of October 4, 1978, P.L. 864, as amended, 32 P.S. §§ 680.1 –680.17.⁴ (Trial court op at 2; R.R. at 201a–33a.) The School District filed preliminary objections, and the Association filed an answer. (R.R. at 265a–84a, 294a–98a.) The trial court denied the School District's preliminary objections and a trial commenced on June 11, 2013. (R.R. at 335a.)

Robert Snow, a senior principal engineer for D'Appolonia Engineers, the firm contracted by the Association in 1997 to provide a plan to improve the Pond's sediment problem, testified that the firm only provided services to improve the Pond and was never asked to determine the cause of the increased sediment. (R.R. at 1224a, 1227a–28a.) Anthony Wayne Sacco, a member of the Association's board, testified that the Association never gave notice of the Pond's sediment problem to the School District prior to filing a lawsuit against the School District. (R.R. at 1394a.)

The Association presented the expert testimony of Terry Soster (Soster), a registered engineer. Soster testified that he performed an evaluation in 2011 for the Association in order to determine the cause of the Pond's sediment problem. (R.R. at 1420a–21a.) He opined that the School District was a major contributor to the Pond's problem but that the Township was also a contributor. (R.R. at 1458a.) He explained that the water runoff from the School District's sports complex drains onto McDowell Lane, and eventually ends in the Pond. (R.R. at 1471a.) He stated that neither the School District nor the Township provided him with a stormwater management plan upon his request. (R.R. at 1466a–67a.) While he did not prepare his own stormwater management plan or calculate the amount of runoff both pre- and post-construction, Soster testified that “it's common sense that when you take grass away and you put in asphalt, the runoff is more” and that when you put pipes in the ground to carry water or build structures with roofs, the water “comes off faster.” (R.R. at 1493a–94a.) He also opined that the sediment accumulation rate in the Pond after construction of the School District's sports complex was higher than it was pre-construction. (R.R. at 1510a–11a.)

Dan Deiseroth (Deiseroth), who was the Township engineer during the construction of the sports complex in 1997–98 and the vice president of Gateway Engineers, which was the engineering firm hired for the sports complex project, testified that there was a stormwater management plan in place during construction. (R.R. at 1229a–30a.) Deiseroth stated that the School District was never notified by the Association that the Pond was being affected. (R.R. at 1742a.) He also stated that the construction of the sports complex was completed properly and never rushed. (R.R. at 1742a.) Deiseroth said that he could not locate the stormwater management plan because his office had moved. (R.R. at 1748a–49a.) Deiseroth opined that the School District's sports complex is in compliance with the SWMA. (R.R. at 1761a.)

Frank R. Siffrin, the Township's manager, testified that McDowell Lane was repaved in 1997–98 as a result of the lease agreement with the School District and was again improved in 2010 to better manage stormwater. (R.R. at 1781a–83a.) Joseph H. Sites (Sites), the current Township engineer who also works for Gateway Engineers, testified that there was no stormwater consideration for the McDowell Lane improvements in 1997–98 and 2010, because stormwater management does not apply to resurfacing and other work accomplished on McDowell Lane. (R.R. at 1872a.) Sites stated that the School District never advised Gateway Engineers to cut any corners for the sports complex project. (R.R. at 2042a–43a.)

William L. Schaffer, the School District's former director of support until he retired in 2008, testified that the Association never complained to him that the School District was causing sediment problems in the Pond. (R.R. at 2093a.) He stated that he was involved in the 1997–98 plan to construct the sports complex and that he was not aware of the School District cutting any corners on the project. (R.R. at 2094a–98a.)

The School District presented the expert testimony of Robert Orchowski (Orchowski), who is an environmental consultant, a registered professional engineer, a licensed land surveyor, and a state-certified wastewater treatment plant operator. Orchowski stated that the School District hired him to perform a site investigation of the sports complex, which he did in December 2011 and again in June 2013. (R.R. at 2150a–52a.) He opined that the post-development stormwater discharge rate is less than the pre-development stormwater discharge rate on the sports complex. (R.R. at 2174a.) He also opined that the School District was not negligent because it constructed everything properly and that the School District did not violate any stormwater management requirements. (R.R. at 2191a.)

At the conclusion of the trial on June 20, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Association. With respect to the negligence claim, the jury awarded the Association $240,000.00 for present damages and $1,310,000.00 for future damages, for a total of $1,550,000.00. The jury apportioned liability as follows: fifty percent to the Township, forty-five percent to the School District, and five percent contributory negligence on the part of the Association. With respect to the SWMA claim, the jury awarded the Association $319,000.00 for present damages and $1,310,000.00 for future damages, for a total of $1,629,000.00. The jury apportioned liability as sixty percent to the Township and forty percent to the School District. However, the jury noted that $1,550,000.00 of the damages for the violations of the SWMA were also included in the damages awarded under the negligence claim. (R.R. at 752a–57a; 2556a–58a.) Both the Township and the School District filed motions to mold the verdict to $500,000.00, consistent with section 8553 of the PSTCA. The trial court granted these motions and molded the verdict to $500,000.00 for each defendant. (R.R. at 766a–67a.)

The Township and the School District both filed motions for post-trial relief, requesting that the trial court mold the verdict to limit the total amount of the Association's recovery to $500,000.00 and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and/or a new trial. (R.R. at 759a–64a; 820a–27a.) By orders dated June 26, 2013, and July 2, 2013, respectively, the trial court denied these motions. (R.R. at 768a, 828a.) The Association filed a motion for post-trial relief objecting to the trial...