Shrom,T. et al v. PA Underground Storage Tank (per curiam order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DR. TIMOTHY AND DEBRA SHROM, Respondents v. PENNSYLVANIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INDEMNIFICATION BOARD, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 500 MAL 2021 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are: a. In a matter of first impression before this Court and of substantial public importance, did the Commonwealth Court err in reversing the decision of the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board which correctly held that Respondents, Dr. Timothy and Debra Shrom failed to satisfy their heavy burden of establishing eligibility for the payment of remediation costs by the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Fund where it is undisputed that the underground storage tanks on the Respondents’ property were not registered and the required registration fee was not paid at the time the release was discovered? b. Did the Commonwealth Court’s Order conflict with other relevant appellate court authority, particularly Luther P. Miller v. Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Bd., 965 A.2d 398 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009), which is substantially factually identical to the instant case, and with other existing case, statutory, and regulatory law, in its characterization of the Board’s denial of the Shroms’ claim for remediation costs due to the failure to register the USTs as an unpromulgated, de facto regulation? c. In a matter of substantial public importance due to its potential to result in the Fund’s insolvency, did the Commonwealth Court err in rejecting the Board’s finding that the Fund relies upon Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection registrations in billing the necessary fees to keep the Fund solvent? [500 MAL 2021] - 2
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.
