Aetna Inc. v. Lexington Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Aetna Inc. v. Lexington Insurance

968 A.2d 229, 600 Pa. 508, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 800

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

Docket378 EAL 2008, 379 EAL 2008, 380 EAL 2008, 381 EAL 2008, 382 EAL 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 968 A.2d 229 (Aetna Inc. v. Lexington Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Inc. v. Lexington Insurance, 968 A.2d 229, 600 Pa. 508, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 800 (Pa. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2009, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 378 EAL 2008, 380 EAL 2008, and 381 EAL 2008, are hereby GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Superior Court departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, in failing to adjudicate rescission claims, thus violating the parties’ due process rights.

The order of the Superior Court regarding this issue is VACATED, and the issue REMANDED to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on petitioners’ outstanding rescission counterclaims. The trial court awarded petitioners summary judgment and dismissed their rescission counterclaim as moot. *510 On appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial court, and awarded summary judgment to Aetna. Following the reversal, the rescission counterclaims are no longer moot. “That an action is ‘moot’ suggests that there is a legal issue involved in a case, but because of the circumstances surrounding the case, the issue has become an academic one and will not be resolved. What ‘mootness’ does not suggest is that an issue was fully considered and a final judgment entered.” Consolidation Coal Company v. District 5, United Mine Workers of America, 336 Pa.Super. 354, 485 A.2d 1118, 1124 (1984) (emphasis in original). Rather than remand for a hearing on those counterclaims, the Superior Court did not address them. The revival of Lloyd’s, RLI’s, and ERSIC’s rescission counterclaims requires remand for consideration of the underlying facts concerning those claims. Jurisdiction relinquished.

The Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 379 EAL 2008 and 382 EAL 2008 are hereby DENIED.

It is further ordered that the Applications for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 378-81 EAL 2008 are hereby DENIED.

Justice SAYLOR would allow the appeals generally and resolve the issues presented via opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of March, 2009, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 378 EAL 2008, 380 EAL 2008, and 381 EAL 2008, are hereby GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Superior Court departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, in failing to adjudicate rescission claims, thus violating the parties’ due process rights.

The order of the Superior Court regarding this issue is VACATED, and the issue REMANDED to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on petitioners’ outstanding rescission counterclaims. The trial court awarded petitioners summary judgment and dismissed their rescission counterclaim as moot. *510 On appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial court, and awarded summary judgment to Aetna. Following the reversal, the rescission counterclaims are no longer moot. “That an action is ‘moot’ suggests that there is a legal issue involved in a case, but because of the circumstances surrounding the case, the issue has become an academic one and will not be resolved. What ‘mootness’ does not suggest is that an issue was fully considered and a final judgment entered.” Consolidation Coal Company v. District 5, United Mine Workers of America, 336 Pa.Super. 354, 485 A.2d 1118, 1124 (1984) (emphasis in original). Rather than remand for a hearing on those counterclaims, the Superior Court did not address them. The revival of Lloyd’s, RLI’s, and ERSIC’s rescission counterclaims requires remand for consideration of the underlying facts concerning those claims. Jurisdiction relinquished.

The Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 379 EAL 2008 and 382 EAL 2008 are hereby DENIED.

It is further ordered that the Applications for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Petitions for Allowance of Appeal at 378-81 EAL 2008 are hereby DENIED.

Justice SAYLOR would allow the appeals generally and resolve the issues presented via opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

968 A.2d 229, 600 Pa. 508, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-inc-v-lexington-insurance-pa-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack