Pa. Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 July 2018
• Docket Number: No. 24 MAP 2017,24 MAP 2017
• Citation: 188 A.3d 396
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC. and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Appellees
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

188 A.3d 396

PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
v.
JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC. and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Appellees

No. 24 MAP 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Decided: July 18, 2018

John C. Sullivan, Kathleen Kristen Kerns, Post & Schell, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, Appellant.

Robert Joseph Schena Jr., Department of Environmental Protection, Norristown, PA, John Martin Hagan, John Mark Sylvester, K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Anthony Richard Holtzman, K & L Gates LLP, Harrisburg, PA, for Department of Environmental Protection and Johnson Matthey, Inc., Appellees.

Richard Ejzak, Andrew M. Roman, Cohen & Grigsby, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Alco Industries, Inc., et al, Amicus Curiae.

Conrad O. Kattner, McShea Law Firm, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Laura A. Foggan, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Assoc., Amicus Curiae.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The Court orders as follows:

Appellant Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company ("Insurer") is attempting to appeal a Commonwealth Court order that denied Insurer's motion for summary relief. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the order is interlocutory and unappealable at this time. Consequently, we quash the appeal.

By way of background, Insurer filed a petition for review in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, naming as respondents Appellees Johnson Matthey, Inc. ("JMI") and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

188 A.3d 398

("DEP"). In its petition, Insurer brought a claim pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act ("DJA"), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531 - 7541. Specifically, Insurer requested that the court enter an order declaring that Insurer has no obligation to defend or indemnify JMI in connection with a lawsuit filed by the DEP against JMI in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.¹ In the underlying action, the DEP is seeking costs for the remediation of environmental damage caused at a site where JMI and its predecessors manufactured metal alloy tubing.

In response to Insurer's petition, JMI filed, inter alia , a counterclaim seeking a declaration that Insurer has a duty to pay all defense and indemnity costs related to the site, subject to the liability limits of the unexhausted policies, and that all remedial investigation costs incurred by JMI were properly payable under the policies as defense costs. JMI also advanced a breach of contract claim.²

Insurer filed a motion for summary relief, which it styled as a motion for summary judgment.³ In moving for summary relief, Insurer argued that it was entitled to the declaratory relief it sought in its petition for review. The Commonwealth Court issued an order denying the motion and offered a published opinion in support of its order. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc. , 160 A.3d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). In its opinion, the court stated, in relevant part, that Insurer "is not entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify JMI." Id. at 294. Notably, in disposing of Insurer's motion for summary relief, the Commonwealth Court did not address JMI's counterclaims, including its declaratory judgment claim related to the scope of Insurer's duty to defend and indemnify JMI in the underlying action.

Insurer timely filed a notice of appeal and a jurisdictional statement. This Court subsequently issued an order directing the parties to address whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal and deferring a determination concerning jurisdiction to consideration of the parties' briefs. The parties have complied with this directive. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition.

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal presents a threshold issue. Burger v. School Bd. of McGuffey School Dist. , 592 Pa. 194, 923 A.2d 1155, 1161 (2007). Such an issue raises a question of law; accordingly, our standard of review is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary. See Com., Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty. , 613 Pa. 1, 32 A.3d 639, 646 (2011) ("The question whether a court has jurisdiction is de novo , and the scope of review is plenary.").

188 A.3d 399

Generally speaking, appellate courts have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from final orders entered at the trial court level. Commonwealth v....