In re Am. Network Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 58 MAP 2021, No. 59 MAP 2021, No. 7 MAP 2022, No. 8 MAP 2022 |
| Citation | 284 A.3d 153 |
| Parties | IN RE: AMERICAN NETWORK INSURANCE COMPANY (in Liquidation) Appeal of: Mike Humphreys, Acting Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania In re: Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company (in Liquidation) Appeal of: Mike Humphreys, Acting Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania In re: American Network Insurance Company (in Liquidation) Appeal of: Mike Humphreys, Acting Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania In re: Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company (in Liquidation) Appeal of: Mike Humphreys, Acting Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Gerald E. Arth, Esq., Philadelphia, for Amicus Curiae National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Lance Scott Rogers, Esq., Ardmore, for Amicus Curiae American Council of Life Insurers.
Michael John Broadbent, Esq., Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, James Reeves Potts, Esq., Cozen & O'Connor, Preston M. Buckman, Esq., PA Department of Insurance, Harrisburg, Leslie Miller Greenspan, Esq., Carl E. Singley, Esq., Tucker Law Group, LLC, Kathryn McDermott Speaks, Esq., Pennsylvania Insurance Department, for Appellant Mike Humphreys, Acting Ins. Commissioner.
Douglas Y. Christian, Esq., Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, L.L.P, Philadelphia, for Appellee Penn Treaty American Corporation.
Benjamin J. Cordiano, Esq., Morgan Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., for Appellees United Healthcare Insurance Company, Anthem, Inc.
Jane Dall Wilson, Esq., Caryn M. Glawe, Esq., Dorothy Alicia Hickok, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Brian Carson Pickard, Esq., Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, Philadelphia, for Appellee National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations.
James Steven Gkonos, Esq., Paul M. Hummer, Esq., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Philadelphia, for Appellee "Agents".
Harold S. Horwich, Esq., for Appellee United Healthcare Insurance Company, Appellee Anthem, Inc.
John P. Lavelle Jr., Esq., for Appellees United Healthcare Insurance Company, Anthem, Inc., "Health Insurers", Cigna Corporation, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, HM Life Insurance Company, QCC Insurance Company, Aetna Life Insurance Company, Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., United Concordia Life and Health Insurance Company, United Concordia Insurance Company.
OPINION
In this declaratory judgment action brought in the context of two insurance-company liquidation matters, the parties assert they informally agreed, among themselves and the single Commonwealth Court Judge1 overseeing the cases, to a procedure for a three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court to render a decision to be reviewable via exceptions by the Commonwealth Court, en banc . However, as the agreement was not memorialized as of record, the party aggrieved by the panel opinion, the statutory liquidator, lodged an immediate appeal with this Court after that opinion and order were filed, and then filed exceptions with the Commonwealth Court, en banc . After the Commonwealth Court, en banc , rendered a second opinion and order, overruling the exceptions and confirming the panel's initial decision, the statutory liquidator filed a second appeal with this Court parallel to the first. As explained herein, this raised a jurisdictional question of which appeal is properly before us. Accordingly, we must resolve that threshold question before turning to the merits.
By way of background, this matter first came before this Court via a notice of appeal filed by Appellant, Jessica K. Altman, Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in her capacity as statutory liquidator of Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company and American Network Insurance Company2 , from the July 9, 2021, order of a panel of the Commonwealth Court. After Appellant filed the first notice of appeal, the parties presented a Joint Application for a Stay, explaining that the parties and the Commonwealth Court Judge attached to the liquidation proceedings agreed to a specific procedure to address Appellant's Application, as noted above. To that end, the parties noted the Commonwealth Court issued an order on July 20, 2021, setting August 23, 2021, as the due date for any exceptions to be filed, a date beyond the 30-day deadline for an appeal to be filed. Thus, Appellant filed the notice of appeal at 58 & 59 MAP 2021 "in an abundance of caution and without the intent of circumventing the Commonwealth Court's process." Appellant's Brief at 3. In a per curiam order entered on October 8, 2021, this Court granted the stay but denied other sought relief, including any determination relative to the Commonwealth Court's continued jurisdiction. Appellant filed a subsequent notice of appeal from an order of the Commonwealth Court, en banc , dated December 22, 2021. The July 9, 2021 order denied Appellant's "Application for Declaration Regarding Policyholder Claims for Non-Guaranty Association Policy Benefits" filed March 20, 2019, and the December 22, 2021 order overruled Appellant's exceptions to the July 9, 2021 order.3
The underlying matters were addressed to the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction thus giving this Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction.4
Relative to the notice of appeal filed from the December 22, 2021, en banc decision of the Commonwealth Court, this Court deferred determination of our jurisdiction to hear the appeal and directed the parties to address the issue in their briefs:
In addition to the issues identified in the jurisdictional statements, the parties are DIRECTED to address the propriety of the Commonwealth Court entertaining and ruling upon Appellant's exceptions to the July 9 opinion after Appellant had filed her initial appeals from that opinion with this Court. See generally Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star Express , 725 A.2d 792, 795 n.4 (Pa.Super. 1999) (). See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 (); Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b) (); id. NOTE ( that Rule 1701(b)(5) "recognizes the authority that an appellate court has to retain jurisdiction while asking a trial court ... to engage in factfinding"). The parties are further DIRECTED to address the impact of any impropriety on the Commonwealth Court's procedure upon the viability of the present appeals.
7 & 8 MAP 2022, PCO 3/17/22, at 2.5 We first address the jurisdictional question of which set of appeals is properly before this Court.6
Appellant argues that the Commonwealth Court's July 20, 2021 scheduling order effectively held the finality of the panel's July 9, 2021, decision in abeyance, thus modifying it to a non-final order pursuant to § 5505.8 Id. at 5. Appellant argues this Court's October 8, 2021, stay order reinforces this conclusion. While the Moses case delineated the jurisdictional constraints imposed by § 5505,9 Appellant distinguishes Moses on the basis that that case did not involve a scheduling order comparable to the instant July 20, 2021 order.
Appellee, National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations (NOLHIGA), adds that this Court's decision in Appeal of Borough of Churchill , 525 Pa. 80, 575 A.2d 550 (1990), allows the fact-finding court in cases not covered by the Rules of Civil Procedure to fashion local rules or case-specific exception procedures. NOLHIGA argues this case falls under the Churchill ruling. NOLHIGA's brief at 3-4.
In cases like Borough of Churchill , which this one is, the final order from which an appeal is taken is, as it is with post-trial practice, the order entered following the exceptions process. That makes sense, because a court can modify its reasoning or even its decision upon consideration of post-trial motions; indeed, that is the very purpose of post-trial practice. Because the first order appealed from (the Panel Order) was interlocutory, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 was "inapplicable."
Id. at 4 (citations omitted) (quoting Commonwealth v. James , 620 Pa. 465, 69 A.3d 180, 186 (2013) ).
Appellees, intervenors Anthem, Inc. and United healthcare Insurance Co., argue, similarly with Appellant's, that this Court's grant of the parties’ joint application for a stay following the initial notice of appeal, functioned to authorize further action by the Commonwealth Court en banc . Even though this Court's order denied other requests contained in the application, including an express authorization for the en banc Commonwealth Court to act, Appellees argue the grant of the stay could serve no other purpose. Appellees’ Brief at 8. In any event, Appellees argue the exceptions should be deemed a motion for reconsideration and the scheduling order a grant of reconsideration. Id . at 10.
Initially, we emphasize that our per curiam order granting the joint stay request but denying all other requested relief was in no way an indication of the jurisdictional propriety of either set of the notices of appeal. That said, part of our initial concern about our jurisdiction over the instant appeals concerned the underlying nature of the "Application" filed in the liquidation proceedings below. Procedures for insurance company Liquidation/Rehabilitation proceedings are set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 3771 - 3784. Appellant's pertinent March 20, 2019, filing was captioned "Liquidator's Application for Declaration Regarding Policyholder Claims for Non-GA Policy Benefits." The rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial