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.

EAST COAST PROPERTIES v. HARFORD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. (10/27/86)

filed: October 27, 1986.

EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLEE,
v.
THE HARFORD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT



Appeal from the Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Civil, at No. 83-10941.

COUNSEL

Ronald D. Ashby, Media, for appellant.

Michael P. Dignazio, Media, for appellee.

Cirillo, President Judge, and Montemuro and Kelly, JJ.

Author: Montemuro

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 114]

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which followed the denial of appellant's motion for "post-verdict" relief.*fn1 Because appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we must quash for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellee, East Coast Properties, Inc. (East Coast), brought this action on on an insurance policy issued by appellant, the Harford Mutual Insurance Company (Harford Mutual), to recover damages that resulted from the theft of East Coast's automobile. Florida police had recovered the

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 115]

    automobile in October of 1982, but, according to East Coast's complaint, "the vehicle at the time of its recovery was worth only $500.00, its salvage value."

A panel of arbitrators awarded $3,500.00 to East Coast, and Harford Mutual appealed to the court of common pleas. Immediately prior to trial before a jury, the court granted East Coast's oral motion in limine, which prohibited Harford Mutual from offering evidence on the salvage value of the recovered automobile because Harford Mutual had failed to plead salvage in new matter as an affirmative defense.*fn2 The parties then agreed to forego trial and submit the controversy to the court as a case stated. In their case stated agreement, they set forth a concise statement of the facts and concluded by agreeing to the entry of judgment as follows:

If the Court is of the opinion that the actual cash value of the aforesaid vehicle on the date of the theft, September 18, 1982 be [sic] Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) then judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 116]

    the Defendant in the sum of Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00), but if the Court be of the opinion that the vehicle was of a lesser value then judgment be entered ...


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.