Satchell v. Insurance Placement Facility of Pennsylvania
Decision Date | 28 June 1976 |
Citation | 361 A.2d 375,241 Pa.Super. 287 |
Parties | Hazel SATCHELL and Provident Building & Loan Assn., Appellants, v. INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Joseph J. Carlin, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Paul N. Sandler, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
Appellants contend that the lower court erred in sustaining appellee's preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
Appellee Insurance Placement Facility of Pennsylvania, issued a standard fire insurance and extended coverage policy to appellant, Hazel Satchell, the owner of a building located at 2301 Lehigh Avenue in Philadelphia. Appellant, Provident Building & Loan Association, held a first mortgage on the premises and was designated in the insurance policy as the loss payee. The effective dates of the policy were February 19, 1971, to February 19, 1972. In April, 1975, appellants filed a complaint in assumpsit alleging that on December 7, 1971, 'an automobile was driven through the east wall of plaintiff's property,' which caused damage in the amount of $3,883.00. Appellants attached Policy Number of 873549 to their complaint.
Appellee did not file an answer to the complaint. Instead, appellee filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, alleging that the policy attached to appellants' complaint was incomplete. Appellee alleged that appellants failed to include page two of the standard policy issued, and that lines 157--161 of that page provided: 'No suit or actions in this policy for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity . . . unless commenced within twelve months next after the inception of the loss.' Appellee attached a deplicate of the entire policy issued to appellants. Appellants did not respond to the preliminary objections and did not amend their complaint. They did, however, submit a brief to the lower court: the court sustained the preliminary objections on August 7, 1975, and dismissed the complaint.
Appellants' primary contention is that the contractual time limitation for commencement of suit cannot be raised at the preliminary objection stage. In support of their position, appellants make the following arguments: (1) contractual limitation of action must be pleaded as new matter pursuant to Rule 1030, Pa.R.C.P., because it is an affirmative defense; (2) even if appellee could file a demurrer, the preliminary objections actually filed were void as a 'speaking demurrer'; (3) the preliminary objections should not have been sustained because appellants were precluded by local rules from filing an answer; and (4) the complaint was improperly dismissed as to the mortgagee, regardless of the propriety of dismissing the complaint as to the insured.
Appellants' first two arguments are interrelated. Whether appellee was precluded from raising the bar of the contractual time limitation at the demurrer stage depends upon whether the preliminary objections in the instant case constituted a 'speaking demurrer.' Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer pursuant to Rule 1017(b)(4), Pa.R.C.P., is merely an allegation by the defendant that the plaintiff's complaint has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Therefore, it is a 'time honored principle that in passing on a demurrer a court cannot consider matters collateral to the pleading opposed but only such matters as arise out of the statement of claim or complaint itself . . .' Detweiler v. Hatfield Borough School District, 376 Pa. 555, 558, 104 A.2d 110, 113 (1954). Further every allegation in the plaintiff's complaint must be accepted as true. See, e.g., Borden v. Baldwin, 444 Pa. 577, 281 A.2d 892 (1971); Cantanese v. Scirica, 437 Pa. 519, 263 A.2d 372 (1970). However, when the plaintiff bases his cause of action on a written agreement, the defendant may attach the agreement to the preliminary objections, and it may be referred to for purposes of deciding a demurrer. Line Lexington Lumber & Millwork, Co., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Publishing Corp., 451 Pa. 154, 301 A.2d 684 (1973). See also St. Peter's Roman Catholic Parish v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 394 Pa. 194, 146 A.2d 724 (1958); Detweiler v. Hatfield Borough School District, supra at 558--559, 104 A.2d at 113: Thus, decisional law compels the conclusion that appellee's demurrer was valid, and cannot be dismissed as a 'speaking demurrer' merely because appellee annexed the portion of the policy omitted in the complaint.
Appellants contend, however, that the contractual limitation is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded by way of answer and new matter under Rule 1030, Pa.R.C.P. Appellee certainly could have proceeded in that manner, and then could have sought a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 1034, or a summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035. [1] Instead, appellee chose to file preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. Under the circumstances of this case, appellee was not precluded from electing this option.
Had appellants attached the entire insurance policy to their complaint, the complaint, as presently drafted, would have defeated their own cause of action, because suit was obviously brought well in excess of the period allowed by the contract. In that situation, therefore, a demurrer would unquestionably be proper. Appellants desire a different result because appellee attached the relevant portion of the policy. As the case law makes clear, however, appellee had the right to attach the remainder of the policy, and the portion attached by the defendant was properly considered by the court in passing upon the demurrer. The lower court, therefore, could examine the entire policy to determine if appellants failed to state a cause of action without considering any facts beyond those contained in the complaint and the policy attached to the preliminary objections. Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, the lower court did not err in passing upon the demurrer.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the lower court properly concluded that the appellants were not entitled to relief. The provision that '(n)o suit or action . . . for the recovery of any claim shall be sustainable . . . unless commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss' is required by law. See, Act of May 17, 1921, P.L. 682, § 506, added August 23, 1961, P.L. 1081, § 1, 40 P.S. § 636. The validity of this clause has been upheld on numerous occasions. See, e.g., The General State Authority v. Planet Insurance Company, 464 Pa. 162, 346 A.2d 265 (1975); Commonwealth v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 462 Pa. 280, 341 A.2d 74 (1975); Lardas v. Underwriters Insurance Co., 426 Pa. 47, 231 A.2d 740 (1967). In the instant case, the pleadings compel the conclusion that appellants were in breach of the contract and, therefore, were not entitled to recovery.
Appellants contend, however, that the contractual period of limitations is waivable. This is certainly an accurate assertion: The General State Authority v. Planet Insurance Company, supra at ---, n. 6, 346 A.2d at 267, n. 6. Appellants, however, have asserted no facts, either in the court below or in this Court, which would support an allegation that appellee waived or extended the contractual limitations period. Appellants seek to justify this omission in their pleadings, and thereby excuse their breach, by reference to the local Philadelphia rule which prohibits a plaintiff from filing an answer to a Demurrer. [2]
Appellants' argument is superficially plausible, but it fails to take into account Rule 1028(c), Pa.R.C.P., which provides that '(a) party may file an amended pleading As of course withing ten (10) days after service of a copy of preliminary objections.' (Emphasis added). Appellants, therefore, had an absolute right to amend their complaint to include facts which would arguably support an averment that the time limitation had been waived or extended by appellee. Had appellants done so, the preliminary objections could not have been sustained, and the case would have required further proceedings, such as depositions followed by a motion for summary judgment, or court-ordered depositions pursuant to Rule 1028(c), followed by determination of the preliminary objections. [3] Appellants, however, elected not to amend. In similar circumstances, we have held that Christiansen v. Philcent...
To continue reading
Request your trial