East Coast Summit v. Aspen American Ins. Co. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S44003-20 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 EAST COAST SUMMIT POINTE, LLC AND MORGAN PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC Appellants v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY AND TSE, INC. : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 706 MDA 2020 Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County Civil Division at No(s): 2016-CV-1783 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2020 Appellants, East Coast Summit Pointe, LLC, and Morgan Properties Management Company, LLC, appeal from the April 22, 2020 order granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Appellees, Aspen American Insurance Company and TSE, Inc., and entering judgment in Appellees’ favor. We affirm. Appellants own an apartment complex in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and sought bids for the construction of a replacement gas line, gas meter, and water meter pit. TSE was one of the bidders and Aspen American issued the surety bond in connection with TSE’s bid. When TSE did not enter into the contract with Appellants, because TSE had submitted a revised bid that Appellants did not appear to consider, Appellants filed a J-S44003-20 complaint, essentially alleging breach of contract and seeking damages of more than $172,000. Subsequently, Appellees filed a contested motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. Thereafter, Appellants filed the present appeal and raise three issues for our review: 1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that [Appellee] TSE, Inc.[’s] revising its bid revoked its original bid. 2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding that no contract existed between the parties. 3. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding issues of fact without any support in the record. Appellants’ brief at 7. In reviewing this appeal, we are guided by the following: Entry of summary judgment is governed by Rule 1035.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2. In addition: Our standard of review of an appeal from an order granting summary judgment is well settled: Summary judgment may be granted only in the clearest of cases where the record shows that there are no genuine issues of material fact and -2- J-S44003-20 also demonstrates that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact is a question of law, and therefore our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we must examine the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Reason v. Kathryn’s Korner Thrift Shop, 169 A.3d 96, 100 (Pa. Super. 2017) (internal citation omitted). We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the thorough memorandum authored by the Honorable James A. Gibbons of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, dated April 22, 2020. Memorandum and Order, 4/22/2020. We conclude that Judge Gibbons’ well-reasoned memorandum accurately disposes of the three issues presented by Appellants on appeal and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Gibbons’ memorandum as our own for purposes of appellate review and affirm the order granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/02/2020 -3- Circulated 10/27/2020 10:13 AM
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
