Schultz v. Erie Insurance Exchange
505 Pa. 90, 1984 Pa. LEXIS 290, 477 A.2d 471 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To open a default judgment, a party must promptly file a petition, plead a meritorious defense, and provide a justifiable excuse for the failure to act; a general averment of office mismanagement or lack of communication is not a sufficient excuse.
Facts:
- Robert W. Schultz had an insurance claim against Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie) under the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.
- On February 14, 1979, Schultz served a complaint on Erie at its corporate office.
- The complaint was subsequently forwarded to Erie's counsel in Philadelphia.
- Erie's counsel received the complaint on March 8, 1979, which was 22 days after it was served on Erie.
- On March 26, 1979, Erie's counsel mailed a letter, dated March 15, to Schultz's attorney requesting an extension of time.
- The delay in mailing the letter was attributed to an "office administration problem."
Procedural Posture:
- Robert W. Schultz filed a complaint against Erie Insurance Exchange in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- On March 14, 1979, a default judgment was entered in favor of Schultz due to Erie's failure to file a timely answer.
- Erie filed a petition with the trial court to open the default judgment.
- The trial court denied Erie's petition to open the judgment.
- Erie (as appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court, ordering the default judgment to be opened.
- Schultz (as appellant) was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (highest court) to review the Superior Court's reversal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant provide a justifiable excuse sufficient to open a default judgment by averring that its attorney was not informed of the complaint's service date and handled the matter in a routine fashion, leading to a late response?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaherty, Justice
No. A defendant does not provide a justifiable excuse sufficient to open a default judgment by merely explaining that office delays or miscommunications led to a late filing. To open a judgment, a court may exercise its discretion only when the petitioner demonstrates that (1) the petition was promptly filed, (2) a meritorious defense can be shown, and (3) the failure to act can be excused. Here, Erie failed to satisfy the third prong. Erie’s petition, which stated its attorney was not informed of the service date, did not offer a justifiable explanation for the delay but merely restated the fact that no timely answer was filed. This failure to plead an adequate excuse means the trial court's refusal to open the default judgment was not an abuse of its discretion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strictness of the three-part test for opening a default judgment in Pennsylvania. It clarifies that mere inadvertence, internal office errors, or a lack of communication between a client and attorney are not legally sufficient excuses for failing to meet a filing deadline. The case serves as a precedent emphasizing the importance of procedural diligence and the finality of judgments, signaling to future litigants that courts will not readily grant relief from default based on claims of routine neglect.
