In the case of
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Russell, Feb. Term 2023, No. 0070 (C.P. Phila. Co. June 13, 2025 Garcia, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting that the Superior Court uphold the trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s post-trial motions in a property damage fire loss subrogation case.
According to the Opinion, the Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of a Plaintiff property insurance company in a subrogation action for damages sustained to the insured’s property as a result of a fire.
In this case, the Plaintiff’s insured owned a property adjacent to the Defendant’s property. The Defendant had hired a neighborhood handyman to fix a hole in the roof of the Defendant’s property.
During the repair, a tenant in the Plaintiff’s insured’s property observed individuals on the roof of the Defendant’s property using an open flame while working. Shortly thereafter, the tenant saw smoke coming from the Defendant’s property. The fire department then arrived and extinguished a fire centered around the Defendant’s skylight.
The Defendant acknowledged the existence of the fire, which had resulted in smoke and water damage to the Plaintiff’s insured’s property. The Plaintiff insurance company paid for the property damages sustained by its insured, along with lost rent, and then sought reimbursement from the Defendant through this subrogation action.
In this matter, the trial court found that the Defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring a competent and careful contractor for work involving significant risk if not skillfully handled, all as articulated by §411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
The court emphasized that the Defendant knew that the handyman was not a qualified roofer, and that the handyman’s lack of skill, necessary precautions, and failure to have proper equipment all increased the risk of a fire during a hazardous roof repair involving an open flame. The evidence otherwise demonstrated that precaution to prevent or minimize fire damage were not taken.
As such, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff insurance company and awarded damages. The Defendant filed a post-trial Motion, arguing lack of evidence regarding negligence. That Motion was denied.
As noted, with this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s post-trial Motions.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this
LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,
www.Law.com (Sept. 25, 2025).
