Opinion
J-A03002-18 No. 1227 EDA 2017
04-04-2018
GREGORY BOLESLAVSKY Appellant v. TRAVCO INSURANCE COMPANY Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered March 16, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No(s): October Term, 2015 No. 0886 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Gregory Boleslavsky, appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which entered summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Travco Insurance Company ("Travco"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we will only briefly summarize them. On September 3, 2012, Appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Brooklyn, NY, with an unknown, uninsured driver. At the time of the accident, Appellant had a motor vehicle insurance policy ("Policy") with Travco. The Policy includes, inter alia, uninsured motorist coverage benefits up to $50,000.00. The Policy provides either party may demand arbitration when the parties are unable to reach a settlement on an uninsured motorist claim. Appellant made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against Travco regarding the accident. Through negotiations, the parties were unable to resolve Appellant's claim. Travco made an initial settlement offer in the amount of $15,000.00, which it increased to $20,000.00 and then to $25,000.00. Appellant rejected all three offers and indicated he would not settle the claim for less than $50,000.00. On September 9, 2015, an arbitration hearing proceeded regarding uninsured motorist coverage; the arbitration panel issued an award for Appellant in the amount of $45,000.00.
Appellant sued Travco on October 12, 2015, alleging one count bad faith. On September 13, 2016, the case proceeded to compulsory arbitration, because Appellant sought damages less than $50,000.00 in his complaint. The arbitrators found in favor of Travco, concluding Appellant had failed to prove Travco engaged in bad faith.
Appellant timely appealed to the Court of Common Pleas on October 4, 2016, from the arbitration award. On February 15, 2017, Travco filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted on March 16, 2017. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 6, 2017. On April 10, 2017, the court ordered a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal, which Appellant timely filed on April 25, 2017.
Appellant raises one issue on appeal:
WHETHER THE [TRIAL] COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED [TRAVCO'S] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT[?](Appellant's Brief at 9).
Appellate review of an order granting summary judgment asks us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Mee v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 908 A.2d 344, 347 (Pa.Super. 2006).
Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. Similarly, the trial court abuses its discretion if it does not follow legal procedure.Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa.Super. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Our scope of review is plenary. Pappas v. Asbel , 564 Pa. 407, 418, 768 A.2d 1089, 1095 (2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 938, 122 S.Ct. 2618, 153 L.Ed.2d 802 (2002).
[W]e apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of a material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate the plaintiff's proof of the elements of [a] cause of action. Summary judgment is proper if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or
defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. In other words, whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense, which could be established by additional discovery or expert report and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate. Thus, a record that supports summary judgment either (1) shows the material facts are undisputed or (2) contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense.Chenot v. A.P. Green Services , Inc., 895 A.2d 55, 61 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Upon appellate review, we are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law, but may reach our own conclusions.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Daniel J. Anders, we conclude Appellant's issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 17, 2017, at 1-9) (finding: Travco's summary judgment motion made clear there were no genuine issues of material fact; Appellant failed to show Travco lacked reasonable basis for extending Appellant settlement offers of up to $25,000.00 for uninsured motorist benefits under Policy; difference between amount of final settlement offer and subsequent arbitration award is immaterial for purposes of determining if insurer's offer lacked reasonable basis; rather, factors insurer considers when determining amount to offer are material; record shows Travco considered, inter alia, Appellant's sworn statement, type of accident in which Appellant was involved, photographs of damage to Appellant's vehicle, extent of damage to vehicle, copies of Appellant's medical records and independent medical examination, whether Appellant sought medical treatment after accident, medical treatment Appellant received, and cost of Appellant's medical treatment; Travco reasonably did not later increase settlement offer from $25,000.00, because Appellant unambiguously indicated he would not settle for less than $50,000.00). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/4/18
Image materials not available for display.