Francesco v. Group Health, Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Pihakis v. Kreefer

    J-A18044-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 15, 2019)

    When sustaining the trial court's ruling will result in the denial of claim or a dismissal of suit, preliminary objections will be sustained only where the case is free and clear of doubt.Brosovic v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 841 A.2d 1071, 1073 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted); see also Francesco v. Group Health Inc., 964 A.2d 897, 899 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that this Court "must determine from the facts averred, whether the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible." (citation omitted)).

  2. Parnell v. Wetzel

    No. 1737 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 24, 2015)

    Id. at 586. Similarly, in Francesco v. Group Health Inc., 964 A.2d 897, 899 (Pa. Super. 2008), the Superior Court held that a trial court's order sustaining preliminary objections, mooted by an amended complaint, "was of no effect, inasmuch as [the] Appellant filed the amended complaint prior to the trial court's order." Appellants filed their Amended Complaint in compliance with Rule 1028(c)(1), it was timely, and filed as of right. The trial court provided no reasoning for its Order, and the Department's arguments to this Court regarding why the trial court's Order should be affirmed are based upon the alleged infirmities in Appellants' Amended Complaint, to which they filed no POs or other responsive pleadings.