Opinion
J-A07008-18 No. 1326 MDA 2017
08-21-2018
EMIL FEIST, SR. AND DIANNE M. FEIST Appellants v. MICHELLE ANDES, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID T. ANDES, AND STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Civil Division at No(s): 2013-2678 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J.
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellants, Emil Feist, Sr. and Dianne M. Feist, appeal from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Michelle Andes, Executrix of the Estate of David T. Andes and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion filed on July 19, 2017.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them at length here. However, for context and the convenience of the reader we note briefly that the over-arching factual scenario in this case is the failure of the Appellants to obtain additional UIM Coverage for their vehicles. Although they had asked David T. Andes, now deceased but at one time the long term insurance agent for the Appellants, to increase the UIM coverage for their vehicles, he advised against it and told them that he would not secure the additional coverage. The Appellants had full knowledge of Mr. Andes' advice and actions, but still maintained their insurance policies with him, and did not acquire the additional coverage through another agent or broker. Very regrettably, Mr. Feist later suffered severe injuries in a motorcycle accident in which his leg was mutilated.
At the time of the horrific motorcycle accident involving Mr. Feist on November 25, 2011, the Appellants had a combined total of $300,000.00 per person in available stacked UIM coverage. The entire policy limits of $300,000.00 were paid to Mr. Feist following the accident.
The Feists had five policies with State Farm. One of the policies insured two vehicles, and the other four policies each insured one vehicle. All six vehicles were insured for $50,000.00 of UIM coverage per person. Therefore, they had $300,000.00 in available stacked UIM coverage, per person.
The Appellants eventually filed a civil action against Mr. Andes and State Farm, and have alleged three counts: The first in negligence; the second based upon breach of fiduciary duty and loyalty; and the third on breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. After the completion of discovery, the Appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which was granted by the trial court on July 19, 2017. This appeal followed.
The three overlapping issues raised in Appellants' brief contend that the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law by not recognizing genuine issues of material facts which created:
1. A duty owed by Appellees to Appellants such that a grant of summary judgment was inappropriate;
2. A "fiduciary" duty owed by Mr. Andes, and therefore State Farm, to the Appellants, to the extent that Appellants had relinquished their decision-making authority to Mr. Andes;
3. An implied contract between the Appellants and Mr. Andes, and therefore State Farm, which created a duty of good faith and fair dealing owed by the Appellee to the Appellants.
The Appellants argue from the depositions of Emil Feist and Dianne Feist, that Mr. Andes owed them a duty in light of their long-term relationship with him. Mr. Andes and his office handled all of their insurance coverages. He was instrumental in recommending and setting up their policies. The basis of their claim is that Mr. Andes stood in a fiduciary relationship with them.
The Depositions of Emil Feist, Sr., and Dianne M. Feist, were taken on November 6, 2014.
Our standard of review of a challenge to an order granting summary judgment is as follows:
We may reverse if there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Our standard of review is de novo, and our scope plenary. We must view the record in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
Furthermore,
[in] evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the summary judgment rule. The rule states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, summary judgment may be entered. Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.Gubbiotti v . Santey , 52 A.3d 272, 273 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Appellants have raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposed of the questions presented herein.
In its discussion, the trial court correctly points out that there were no issues of material fact presented to the court. The critical factual point, as noted by the trial court, was that the Feists conceded, during numerous occasions at their respective depositions, that they knew their UIM coverage limits were not going to be increased by Mr. Andes. The record is replete with the undisputed testimony of the Feists that following their two meetings with Mr. Andes, one in February 2011 and the other in September or October 2011, that they knew Mr. Andes was not going to increase their UIM coverages on their automobiles. For example, Emil Feist testified as follows:
Q. So it was your understanding that he was not going to provide you increased underinsured and uninsured motorist coverage at that meeting?Deposition, Emil Feist, Sr., 11-6-2014 at 46-47. Similarly, Dianne Feist testified:
A. Exactly.
Q. On February 2011?
A. Exactly, yeah.
Q. What did Dave Andes say about the increasing your uninsured/underinsured motorist?Deposition, Dianne Feist, 11-6-2014 at 37.
A. He said no.
Q. He refused to do so?
A. He said you have enough coverage, you don't need to do that.
Q. So at the first meeting that took place in 2011 is it your testimony that it was your understanding that he refused to increase your coverage?
A. Yes.
Although there was another meeting between the Feists and Mr. Andes later in the year, they again left the meeting knowing that Mr. Andes was not going to increase their uninsured and underinsured coverage. Deposition, Emil Feist, Sr., 11-6-2014 at 53; Deposition, Dianne Feist, 11-6-2014 at 46.
The trial court competently found that the Feists were free to contact another State Farm agent, or explore insurance through another company. In light of this evidence, and without additional evidence which showed that Mr. Andes exerted control over the Feist's ability to make their own decisions, the trial court was unwilling to find a fiduciary or confidential relationship.
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion by the Honorable Thomas F. Burke, Jr., dated July 19, 2017, in Civil Division No. 2013-2678, Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, PA.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 08/21/2018
Image materials not available for display.