Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DEWAYNE E. SHREFFLER AND PAMELA J. SHREFFLER v. GREENVILLE AREA CHAMBER COMMERCE (09/12/86)

filed: September 12, 1986.

DEWAYNE E. SHREFFLER AND PAMELA J. SHREFFLER, HIS WIFE,
v.
GREENVILLE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP AND REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY V. JOHN AND LOIS M. BRZEZINSKI, JR., ET AL. APPEAL OF WILLIAM H. AND KAREN L. RIGGLE, APPELLANTS AT NO. 571 PITTSBURGH, 1985. APPEAL OF REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, APPELLANT AT NO. 621 PITTSBURGH, 1985. GERALD PLOWMAN AND DELORES PLOWMAN, HIS WIFE, V. REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY ET AL. APPEAL OF WILLIAM H. AND KAREN L. RIGGLE, APPELLANTS AT NO. 572 PITTSBURGH, 1985. APPEAL OF REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, APPELLANT AT NO. 622 PITTSBURGH, 1985. WILLIAM H. AND KAREN L. RIGGLE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS AT NO. 573 PITTSBURGH, 1985. V. REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, ET AL. APPEAL OF REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, APPELLANT AT NO. 620 PITTSBURGH, 1985. THOMAS L. MOWRY AND BESSIE M. MOWRY, HIS WIFE, V. REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, V. JOHN AND LOIS BRZEZINSKI, JR., ET AL. APPEAL OF WILLIAM H. AND KAREN L. RIGGLE, APPELLANTS AT NO. 574 PITTSBURGH, 1985. APPEAL OF REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, APPELLANT AT NO. 619 PITTSBURGH, 1985. DALE L. AND PATRICIA A. JOHNSON, V. GREENVILLE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP AND REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, ET AL. APPEAL OF WILLIAM H. AND KAREN L. RIGGLE, APPELLANTS AT NO. 575 PITTSBURGH, 1985. APPEAL OF REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, APPELLANTS AT NO. 618 PITTSBURGH, 1985. ARTHUR J. HARVEY AND DORIS HARVEY, V. REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, ET AL. APPEAL OF WILLIAM H. AND KAREN L. RIGGLE, APPELLANTS AT NO. 576 PITTSBURGH, 1985. APPEAL OF REYNOLDS DISPOSAL COMPANY, APPELLANT AT NO. 623 PITTSBURGH, 1985



Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Civil Division at No. 1226 C.D. 1979. Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Civil Division at No. 1259 C.D. 1979. Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Civil Division at No. 1262 C.D. 1979. Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Civil Division at No. 1261 C.D. 1979. Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Civil Division at No. 1263 C.D. 1979. Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Civil Division at No. 1264 C.D. 1979.

COUNSEL

Lynette Norton, Pittsburgh, for Riggle, appellants (at 571-576) and appellees (at 618-623).

Cyril T. Garvey, Sharon, for Reynolds, appellant (at 618-623) and appellee (at 571-576).

Charles F. Gilchrest, Sharon, for Sanders, appellees.

Russell L. Schetroma, Meadville, for Brzezinski, appellees.

Tamilia, Kelly and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Montgomery

[ 357 Pa. Super. Page 305]

The consolidated appeals in this case began as six individual suits instituted by six customers of the Appellant Reynolds Disposal Company (hereafter referred to as "Reynolds Disposal"). Such actions involved requests for damages to be assessed against Reynolds Disposal and other Defendants for alleged harm to real estate and personal property from the backup of sewage and flooding into the basements of the Plaintiffs' homes. Reynolds Disposal holds a certificate of convenience as a public utility and provides sanitary sewage disposal through a sanitary sewer system located in the community of Reynolds in Mercer County. Inter alia, the Plaintiffs asserted in their Complaints that the sewage system was inadequate.

Reynolds Disposal denied liability and joined fifty-two (52) property owners in the community of Reynolds as Additional Defendants. It alleged that any damage to the Plaintiffs from sewage backup and flooding was the result of overloading of the sewage system by surface and storm waters, and that the Additional Defendants had caused or allowed such waters to enter the system through the construction of

[ 357 Pa. Super. Page 306]

    their homes or other buildings on their respective properties.

Because allegations of inadequacy of the sewer system were raised, the lower court initially stayed all proceedings until the Public Utility Commission reached a determination on the adequacy of the system.*fn1 Various property owners raised the dispute before the Public Utility Commission by the filing of a complaint. After conducting hearings, a Public Utility Commission Administrative Law Judge issued a decision concerning the adequacy of the system. Exceptions were thereafter denied and the Commission ordered Reynolds Disposal to file a plan for ameliorating the problem of surface waters infiltrating into its sanitary sewer system. Both Reynolds Disposal and the homeowners involved in the case appealed this decision to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the Commission order in Reynolds Disposal Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 79 Pa. Commw. 222, 468 A.2d 1179 (1983).

When the cases were returned to the Court of Common Pleas, several Plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary judgment, which were denied. Motions for summary judgment by the Additional Defendants also came before the lower court. Upon consideration of various matters of record which will be further discussed herein, the court issued an Order dated March 27, 1985 granting summary judgment in favor of several of the Additional Defendants and denying such relief as to other Additional Defendants. It is from these rulings that the instant appeals are filed by Reynolds Disposal and by William H. Riggle and Karen L. Riggle.*fn2 The latter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.