J-S52028-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ROGER D. SHAFFER AND ANN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOLIVEIRA SHAFFER, HIS WIFE, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
EBENSBURG POWER CO.; BABCOCK & WILCOX EBENSBURG POWER INC.; T/D/B/A EBENSBURG POWER CO.; EBENSBURG INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP T/D/B/A EBENSBURG POWER CO, POWER SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, INC.,
Appellees No. 225 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 8, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s): 2001-4552
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2015
Appellants, Roger D. Shaffer (Roger) and Ann Doliveira Shaffer (Ann)
(collectively, Appellants), appeal from the order entered on January 8, 2015
denying Appellants’ request for interest on settlement funds. We affirm.
The facts and protracted procedural history of this case are as follows.
On February 5, 2001, Roger was injured at the Ebensburg Power Company
electrical generation plant. As a result, he filed a personal injury suit against
Appellees (collectively, hereinafter “Ebensburg”). In 2003, just prior to trial,
the parties reached a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Ebensburg
presented Appellants with three settlement options, two providing annuity J-S52028-15
options and another providing for a lump sum payment. However,
Appellants attempted to rescind and never signed an agreement. In October
2003, Ebensburg sought to enforce the settlement agreement. Following
argument, the trial court enforced the settlement agreement and directed
Appellants to execute all settlement documents and releases. Moreover, the
trial court determined Ebensburg was not responsible for any interest on the
settlement proceeds. Appellants appealed and this Court affirmed. Shaffer
v. Ebensburg Power, 864 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004). Following this
Court’s decision, Ebensburg again presented Appellants with three
settlement options that they refused to execute. On February 16, 2005, the
trial court ordered Ebensburg to deposit a portion of the settlement with the
Prothonotary and release another portion to Appellants’ counsel.
Meanwhile, in November 2003, Ebensburg’s insurance company,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), attempted to fund an annuity
with Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Life). However,
because Appellants did not finalize the settlement agreement, Liberty Life
unilaterally returned the funds to Liberty in June 2010. Liberty then
attempted to release the settlement funds to Appellants, but they demanded
interest and again refused to execute necessary documentation. On August
14, 2014, Appellants filed a petition for the enforcement of a structured
settlement, asserting that structured settlement sequestration was an
integral part of settlement and they expected the funds had been invested
and yielded some return. In an order and opinion entered on October 2,
-2- J-S52028-15
2014, the trial court determined that Appellants had not entered into a
written settlement agreement, despite numerous orders directing Appellants
to do so. Accordingly, it concluded that Appellants could not rely upon
unsigned documents or Liberty’s spontaneous act of initially funding the
annuity to obligate Liberty to provide interest or investment returns.
However, the trial court noted that equity required any interest or return on
investments earned from November 12, 2003 through June 2, 2010 be
provided to Appellants, but that Appellants were not entitled to additional
interest.
After receiving affidavits from Liberty Life that no interest or earned
returns accrued on the funds because an annuity was never funded, the
parties sought clarification of the October 2, 2014 order. After argument, on
January 8, 2015, the trial court entered an order stating Appellants were not
entitled to additional interest on the settlement funds. This timely appeal
resulted.1
On appeal, Appellants present the following issue for our review:
Whether the [trial] court erred in holding [] Appellants are not entitled to interest on [their] settlement?
Appellants’ Brief at 4 (complete capitalization omitted). ____________________________________________
1 Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on February 5, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Appellants to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellants complied on March 19, 2015. In response, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on March 31, 2015.
-3- J-S52028-15
In sum, Appellants argue:
[] Appellants maintain that the [trial court] should have ordered interest on the proceeds that were held by the insurance company from 2003 to 2010 on the annuity sum as part of a structured settlement that was ordered by the [trial court]. An abuse of discretion would be warranted if such an interest was not declared by the [trial court]. [] Appellants had a reasonable expectation that interest on an annuity sum would be earned from 2003 to 2010 and [are] asking this Court to order the lower court to reconsider the decision and issue an [o]rder declaring interest due and payable from 2003 to 2014 on the principle annuity sum held by the insurance company in this matter.
[] Appellants maintain that the money due to [] Appellants on this settlement was a liquidated sum and applicable to have interest paid on said sum. [] Appellants maintain that because the amounts to be paid to [] Appellants were overdue, those payments should have earned interest from the time they were due to [] Appellants, i.e., 2010. In fact, the insurance representative contacted [] Appellants about having the payout made in 2010. There is a liquidated amount due in a fixed amount to [] Appellants. As such, interest is due on those proceeds. The duty to pay by the insurance company was a certain duty to pay and was fixed and liquidated. That amount became liquidated when it was capable of ascertainment with mathematical precision. In this case, the $100,000[.00] due to [] Appellants was put in the enforced agreement and the insurance company knew it had to pay that rate. The [trial court] had discretion as to whether to award interest and abused this discretion based on the application of [] law which requires interest be paid to [] Appellants on this liquidated fixed certain sum.
Id. at 9-10.
“The issue before us involves the proper interpretation of a rule. This is
a question of law, and thus, our standard of review is de novo. Our scope of
review, to the extent necessary to resolve the legal question before us is the
-4- J-S52028-15
entire record, and thus, is plenary.” Wright v. Lexington & Concord
Search & Abstract LLC, 26 A.3d 1134, 1136 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229.1 governs the procedure for
seeking interest on settlement funds. If the terms of the settlement are not
fulfilled, the aggrieved party typically seeks redress through a motion to
enforce settlement. See Pa.R.C.P. 229.1. The Rule contains a variety of
options, including invalidating the agreement and proceeding with the
lawsuit, or seeking sanctions which include the award of attorneys' fees
and/or interest. Id. More specifically, “[i]f a plaintiff and a defendant have
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-S52028-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ROGER D. SHAFFER AND ANN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOLIVEIRA SHAFFER, HIS WIFE, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellants
v.
EBENSBURG POWER CO.; BABCOCK & WILCOX EBENSBURG POWER INC.; T/D/B/A EBENSBURG POWER CO.; EBENSBURG INVESTORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP T/D/B/A EBENSBURG POWER CO, POWER SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, INC.,
Appellees No. 225 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered January 8, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Civil Division at No(s): 2001-4552
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2015
Appellants, Roger D. Shaffer (Roger) and Ann Doliveira Shaffer (Ann)
(collectively, Appellants), appeal from the order entered on January 8, 2015
denying Appellants’ request for interest on settlement funds. We affirm.
The facts and protracted procedural history of this case are as follows.
On February 5, 2001, Roger was injured at the Ebensburg Power Company
electrical generation plant. As a result, he filed a personal injury suit against
Appellees (collectively, hereinafter “Ebensburg”). In 2003, just prior to trial,
the parties reached a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Ebensburg
presented Appellants with three settlement options, two providing annuity J-S52028-15
options and another providing for a lump sum payment. However,
Appellants attempted to rescind and never signed an agreement. In October
2003, Ebensburg sought to enforce the settlement agreement. Following
argument, the trial court enforced the settlement agreement and directed
Appellants to execute all settlement documents and releases. Moreover, the
trial court determined Ebensburg was not responsible for any interest on the
settlement proceeds. Appellants appealed and this Court affirmed. Shaffer
v. Ebensburg Power, 864 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004). Following this
Court’s decision, Ebensburg again presented Appellants with three
settlement options that they refused to execute. On February 16, 2005, the
trial court ordered Ebensburg to deposit a portion of the settlement with the
Prothonotary and release another portion to Appellants’ counsel.
Meanwhile, in November 2003, Ebensburg’s insurance company,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty), attempted to fund an annuity
with Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Life). However,
because Appellants did not finalize the settlement agreement, Liberty Life
unilaterally returned the funds to Liberty in June 2010. Liberty then
attempted to release the settlement funds to Appellants, but they demanded
interest and again refused to execute necessary documentation. On August
14, 2014, Appellants filed a petition for the enforcement of a structured
settlement, asserting that structured settlement sequestration was an
integral part of settlement and they expected the funds had been invested
and yielded some return. In an order and opinion entered on October 2,
-2- J-S52028-15
2014, the trial court determined that Appellants had not entered into a
written settlement agreement, despite numerous orders directing Appellants
to do so. Accordingly, it concluded that Appellants could not rely upon
unsigned documents or Liberty’s spontaneous act of initially funding the
annuity to obligate Liberty to provide interest or investment returns.
However, the trial court noted that equity required any interest or return on
investments earned from November 12, 2003 through June 2, 2010 be
provided to Appellants, but that Appellants were not entitled to additional
interest.
After receiving affidavits from Liberty Life that no interest or earned
returns accrued on the funds because an annuity was never funded, the
parties sought clarification of the October 2, 2014 order. After argument, on
January 8, 2015, the trial court entered an order stating Appellants were not
entitled to additional interest on the settlement funds. This timely appeal
resulted.1
On appeal, Appellants present the following issue for our review:
Whether the [trial] court erred in holding [] Appellants are not entitled to interest on [their] settlement?
Appellants’ Brief at 4 (complete capitalization omitted). ____________________________________________
1 Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on February 5, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) directing Appellants to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellants complied on March 19, 2015. In response, the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on March 31, 2015.
-3- J-S52028-15
In sum, Appellants argue:
[] Appellants maintain that the [trial court] should have ordered interest on the proceeds that were held by the insurance company from 2003 to 2010 on the annuity sum as part of a structured settlement that was ordered by the [trial court]. An abuse of discretion would be warranted if such an interest was not declared by the [trial court]. [] Appellants had a reasonable expectation that interest on an annuity sum would be earned from 2003 to 2010 and [are] asking this Court to order the lower court to reconsider the decision and issue an [o]rder declaring interest due and payable from 2003 to 2014 on the principle annuity sum held by the insurance company in this matter.
[] Appellants maintain that the money due to [] Appellants on this settlement was a liquidated sum and applicable to have interest paid on said sum. [] Appellants maintain that because the amounts to be paid to [] Appellants were overdue, those payments should have earned interest from the time they were due to [] Appellants, i.e., 2010. In fact, the insurance representative contacted [] Appellants about having the payout made in 2010. There is a liquidated amount due in a fixed amount to [] Appellants. As such, interest is due on those proceeds. The duty to pay by the insurance company was a certain duty to pay and was fixed and liquidated. That amount became liquidated when it was capable of ascertainment with mathematical precision. In this case, the $100,000[.00] due to [] Appellants was put in the enforced agreement and the insurance company knew it had to pay that rate. The [trial court] had discretion as to whether to award interest and abused this discretion based on the application of [] law which requires interest be paid to [] Appellants on this liquidated fixed certain sum.
Id. at 9-10.
“The issue before us involves the proper interpretation of a rule. This is
a question of law, and thus, our standard of review is de novo. Our scope of
review, to the extent necessary to resolve the legal question before us is the
-4- J-S52028-15
entire record, and thus, is plenary.” Wright v. Lexington & Concord
Search & Abstract LLC, 26 A.3d 1134, 1136 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229.1 governs the procedure for
seeking interest on settlement funds. If the terms of the settlement are not
fulfilled, the aggrieved party typically seeks redress through a motion to
enforce settlement. See Pa.R.C.P. 229.1. The Rule contains a variety of
options, including invalidating the agreement and proceeding with the
lawsuit, or seeking sanctions which include the award of attorneys' fees
and/or interest. Id. More specifically, “[i]f a plaintiff and a defendant have
entered into an agreement of settlement, the defendant shall deliver the
settlement funds to the attorney for the plaintiff, or to the plaintiff if
unrepresented, within twenty calendar days from receipt of an executed
release.” Pa.R.C.P. 229.1(c) (emphasis added). “If the court finds that the
defendant violated subdivision (c) of this rule and that there is no material
dispute as to the terms of the settlement or the terms of the release,
the court shall impose sanctions in the form of interest[.]” Pa.R.C.P.
229.1(g) (emphasis added).
Here, the trial court noted that this matter has been ongoing for well
over 11 years. Trial Court Opinion, 3/31/2015, at 6. It recognized that this
Court has determined that the settlement agreement was enforceable. Id.
The trial court stated that despite that determination “and multiple orders
that [Appellants] execute the settlement documents[,] they did nothing to
-5- J-S52028-15
secure the release of the funds or aid in the establishment of an annuity.”
Id.
Based upon our review, we agree Appellants are not entitled to
interest on the settlement funds. Initially, we note Appellants do not
acknowledge Rule 229.1 in their brief to this Court or argue it is somehow
inapplicable to this matter. Appellants have not executed a release under
Rule 229.1(c) and, thus, the duty to transfer the settlement proceeds (and
any related duty to pay interest) was not triggered under our procedural
rules. This Court previously affirmed an order to this effect. See Shaffer v.
Ebensburg Power, 864 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004). Instead, Appellants
baldly maintain that interest is due because the amounts owed them have
been withheld and are now overdue. The record, however, establishes that
the settlement funds have been ready and available to Appellants and their
refusal has produced the long delay. Under these circumstances, Appellants
simply are not entitled to interest and we discern no legal error or abuse of
discretion in the trial court’s ruling.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 11/13/2015
-6-