SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Pennsylvania Case Summaries

Estate of Smalling v. 2990 Holme Operating, LLC
Pennsylvania Superior Court
2026 Pa. Super. LEXIS 334* | 2026 PA Super 138 | 2026 LX 328553

Decided: June 30, 2026

Defendant waived their right to compel arbitration after engaging in the litigation process for over a year without raising arbitration as a jurisdictional defense.

Background

In this case, the Court reviewed their prior Order denying Defendant’s Petition to Compel Arbitration.

In January of 2024, Plaintiffs, the children of decedent Glendon Smalling, filed a survival action and wrongful death suit alleging professional negligence against Defendant, a healthcare facility (Facility). Decedent was housed at the facility from January 2022 to April 2022. In early 2023, Decedent passed away. Plaintiffs alleged that the Facility negligently treated Decedent, resulting in numerous pressure wounds, malnutrition, weight loss, infections, and the need for additional hospitalization. Facility filed preliminary objections to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, resulting in an Amended Complaint. Facility filed renewed preliminary objections, and the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. Facility then filed an Answer with New Matter. None of Facility’s responsive pleadings included an arbitration clause as a defense.

On March 21, 2025, Facility filed a petition seeking to compel arbitration based on a binding arbitration clause within the Admission Agreement signed by Decedent. In response, the Plaintiffs argued the facility waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that by participating in all aspects of the litigation process for fourteen months without ever raising the right to compel arbitration, Plaintiffs would be significantly prejudiced should the case be abruptly moved to arbitration. The Plaintiffs further asserted that the arbitration provision was invalid, the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration provision, and the provision was unenforceable pursuant to the doctrine of unconscionability. The trial court denied Facility’s petition to compel arbitration, and Facility appealed to the Superior Court.

Holding

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court order denying Facility’s Petition to Compel Arbitration. By actively engaging in discovery, motions practice, and court conferences for fourteen months without once raising any right to compel arbitration, Facility waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision. The Plaintiffs were required to spend time, effort, and expense in filing amended complaints, and the trial court expended judicial resources issuing orders and holding case conferences. Accordingly, if Facility’s Petition were approved, Plaintiffs would be significantly prejudiced.

Questions about this case can be directed to Danielle Schwartz at (717) 237-7135 or dschwartz@tthlaw.com

Halstead v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 430 MDA 2025

Decided: July 28, 2026

In an unpublished decision, the Superior Court held that the unambiguous policy language did not afford coverage for a relative, who was not a “named insured,” that was operating a vehicle not listed as a covered auto on the policy.

Background

This litigation arose from a motor vehicle accident involving wherein driver Nicholas Giordano (Giordano) rear ended the Halstead’s vehicle, causing Rose Halstead’s death. Lewis Halstead (Halstead), on his own behalf and as the representative of his wife’s estate, sued Giordano.

Giordano was insured by Kemper Insurance, and his father, Peter Giordano, was insured by Progressive. Giordano sought excess coverage from Progressive, which was declined. Kemper tendered its policy limits and Giordano assigned his rights under the Progressive policy to Halstead, who filed the instant declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that Progressive was required to provide coverage.

The Progressive policy specifically excluded coverage for “bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of any vehicle owned by a relative or rated resident or furnished or available for the regular use of a relative or rated resident, other than a covered auto for which this coverage has been purchased.” The vehicle involved in the accident was not listed on the declarations page; the driver was listed as a relative and not specifically designated a “named insured”.

Progressive filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on policy exclusions, which the trial court denied. Progressive then filed a motion for summary judgment alleging, inter alia, that coverage was excluded pursuant to the terms of the policy. The trial court denied the motion. Progressive appealed to the Superior Court by permission.

Holding

The phrase “named insured” is a technical term in the insurance industry, specifically referring to individuals listed as “named insureds” on the insurance policy. Giordano was not listed as a named insured. The only source of coverage for him under the policy was his status as a relative, but the policy excluded coverage for motor vehicle accidents involving vehicles not specifically listed on the policy as covered autos. Accordingly, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for entry of summary judgment in Progressive’s favor.

Questions about this case can be directed to Caitlyn Corey at (267) 817-7024 or ccorey@tthlaw.com.

Steel Valley Fabricators, LLC v. Cozza Enters., LLC
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 1183 WDA 2025

Decided: August 7, 2026

In an unpublished decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court opened a default judgment only as to claims where the defaulting party plead a meritorious defense in its proposed Answer.

Background

Steel Valley Fabrication, LLC (Steel Valley) filed a Complaint alleging several claims against Cozza Enterprises, LLC (Cozza), two of which sounded in contract and one for unjust enrichment. Even though Cozza was properly served with the Complaint, it did not timely file an Answer. As Praecipe for Entry of Default Judgment was mailed to Cozza to the address at which it was served with original process. Then, a default judgment was entered. Five days after default judgment was entered, counsel for Cozza entered their appearance and filed a Petition to Open Default Judgment (the Petition), which included a proposed Answer and New Matter that specifically denied the existence of a contract between the parties. After briefing and oral argument, the trial court denied Cozza’s Petition. Cozza appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

On appeal, Cozza first challenged the trial court’s denial of its Petition arguing that it never received the Notice of Intent to File a Default Judgment (the Notice), and when it learned of the default judgment, it promptly informed counsel, who entered their appearance and filed the Petition and a proposed Answer. Cozza next argued that its proposed Answer filed alongside the Petition set forth a meritorious defense—specifically that a contract between the Parties never existed, such that Cozza is entitled to judgment in its favor if proven at trial.

Holding

As for Cozza’s first argument, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court, stating that the certification attached to the Petition confirmed that the Notice was mailed to Cozza, which is all that is required by the Rules.

Regarding Cozza’s second argument, the Superior Court determined that Cozza Enterprises set forth a meritorious defense for the two contract claims because an element of such claims is existence of a contract, which Cozza specifically denied in its Answer. However, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s default judgment for the unjust enrichment claim, as Cozza did not set forth a meritorious defense. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Questions about this case can be directed to Kaylie O’Donnell at (717) 255-7643 or kodonnell@tthlaw.com.