Johnson v. Keystone Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 May 1982 |
| Citation | 299 Pa.Super. 187,445 A.2d 517 |
| Parties | Charles JOHNSON and Ruth Johnson, Appellants, v. KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued Feb. 1, 1982.
James Womer, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Mark Robert Bosniak, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the appellants' complaint for failure to comply with the so-called "240 Day Rule" and Philadelphia R.Civ.P. 151. [1] The appellants contend that the lower court abused its discretion in entering the order. We vacate and remand.
The procedural history of this case is as follows: Appellants filed their complaint on December 3, 1979. An answer, new matter and counterclaim were filed by the appellee on January 16, 1980. Preliminary objections to the answer, new matter and counterclaim were filed by the appellants on January 18 1980.
On January 15, 1980, the appellee sent the appellants a set of supplemental interrogatories. In a letter dated February 12 1980, appellants' counsel notified the appellee that the appellants would not answer the supplemental interrogatories on the ground that the information being sought was as readily available to the appellee as it was to the appellants. [2]
On June 16 1980, the appellee filed a motion for sanctions seeking to compel appellants to answer the supplemental interrogatories. An answer to the motion was filed on the same day.
On June 19, 1980, the trial court entered an order granting in part and denying in part appellants' preliminary objections. The appellee filed an amended answer, new matter and counterclaim on July 1, 1980. Appellants filed a reply on July 3, 1980.
On August 6, 1980, the trial court ordered the appellants to answer the supplemental interrogatories within 30 days. [3] The appellants' answers were filed on August 12, 1980.
A hearing was held on November 10, 1980, following notice, before a "court master", to determine whether the appellants' complaint should be dismissed for their failure to file either a certificate of readiness or a petition for an extension of time on or before August 31, 1980, as required by the "240 Day Rule". There is no record of that "hearing" and the master did not file a report with the court.
On December 23, 1980, the trial court entered an order dismissing the appellants' complaint stating only that appellants had "failed to show good cause for not filing a Certificate of Readiness or a Petition to Extend...." It is from this order that appellants filed their appeal. On February 4, 1981 the trial court filed a "memorandum opinion", [4] containing one sentence, and stating again that the appellants' complaint had been dismissed on December 23, 1980 for their failure "to demonstrate good cause" for not complying with the 240 day rule "as determined by a Court Master" at the hearing on November 10, 1980.
On January 22, 1981, after their appeal was filed in this court, appellants petitioned the trial court for reconsideration of its order of December 23, 1980. The basis of their petition was that they had made a good faith effort to comply with the 240 Day Rule. In support of the petition, appellants set forth the following allegations: (1) The appellants' counsel was not able to begin the process of compliance with the 240 Day Rule until August of 1980 because he was almost continuously involved in trial work from September of 1979 to August of 1980; (2) The appellants' counsel had almost 400 Certificates of Readiness or Petitions for Extensions to file in August of 1980; (3) The hours for filing certificates or petitions in the Prothonotary's Office for Philadelphia County in August of 1980 were limited to between 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and between 5:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M.; (4) As a result of the large number of certificates and petitions being filed in Philadelphia County in August of 1980, the Prothonotary's Office was in a state of "utter confusion"; (5) The certificate of readiness for this case was prepared and taken to the Prothonotary's Office before the August 31, 1980 deadline but for some unknown reason, it was never filed; (6) In the week after the deadline for filing the certificate had passed, appellants' counsel attempted to file the certificate, however, the Prothonotary refused to accept it; and (7) This evidence was presented at the Master's Hearing in this matter.
In opposition to appellants' petition for reconsideration, appellee alleged that no evidence in support of appellants' allegations was introduced at the master's hearing. The appellee alleges that the only evidence presented by appellants at the November 10, 1980 hearing was that the certificate was not filed because of an oversight by appellants' counsel.
The trial court denied the petition for reconsideration on February 20, 1981, on the basis that appellants' appeal from the Order of December 23, 1980 was pending before this court.
The Supreme Court's order of November 19, 1979 provided:
Appellants concede that no certificate of readiness or petition for an extension of time was filed and docketed in the prothonotary's office on or before August 31, 1980. The appellants contend, however, that the evidence they produced at the master's hearing was sufficient to show good cause for their failure and that the court erred in dismissing their complaint for want of prosecution and that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion.
To show good cause why a case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to the 240 Day Rule, a plaintiff must reasonably explain his inability to certify the case ready for trial. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. A decision to dismiss a complaint for want of prosecution under the 240 Day Rule is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Drakes Mills Development Company v. Northwest...
To continue reading
Request your trial