PA Manuf Assoc Ins Co, Aplt v. Matthey, Inc. & DEP

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 18, 2018
• Docket: 24 MAP 2017
• Status: Published

Opinion

|N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVAN|A MIDDLE DlSTR|CT

PENNSYLVAN|A l\/|ANUFACTURERS’ : No. 24 l\/lAP 2017 ASSOC|AT|GN |NSURANCE COl\/IPANY, Appeal from the Order of the : Commonwea|th Court at No. 330 l\/lD Appe|lant : 2015 dated 4/21/17

V.

JOHNSON l\/|ATTHEY, |NC. AND PENNSYLVAN|A DEPART|\/|ENT OF ENV|RONMENTAL PROTECT|ON,

Appellees

D|SSENTlNG STATEMENT CHlEF JUST|CE SAYLOR DEC|DED:Ju|y18, 2018

l respectfully dissent. None of the decisions referenced by the majority suggest that, after the outright rejection of a party’s entire request for declaratory relief by a court of original jurisdiction, the pendency of an adverse party’s counterclaim nevertheless serves to defeat the entitlement to an interlocutory appeal as of right under Nationv\/icle Mutua/ /nsurance Co. v. Vl/ickett, 763 A.2d 813 (Pa. 2000). lndeed -- and While l have not been a supporter of the l/l/ickett doctrine other than by Way of adherence to precedent -- | question What may be left of Wickett under the majority’s present approach7 Which suggests that the decision does not apply merely When something

remains pending in the court of original jurisdiction

Respectfu|ly, from my point of view, if l/l/ickett is to be overruled, it would be preferable to do so directly. Under the presently prevailing law, it is my considered judgment that Appe|lant is entitled to appeal as of right per l/l/ickett’s special rule of

appealability for declaratory judgment actions.

Justice Todd joins this dissenting statement

[24 |\/|AP 2017] - 2