# J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Insurance

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 6, 1988 · 372 Pa. Super. 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6308025

## Case

- **Full name:** J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES CO. and the Van Brunt Company v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PMA Insurance Company, St. Paul Insurance Company, U.S. Fire Insurance Company, Wausau Insurance Company, and Rockwood Insurance Company
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 6, 1988
- **Citations:** 372 Pa. Super. 575; 539 A.2d 1345; 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 972
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cirillo
- **Judges:** Brosky, Cavanaugh, Cirillo, Files, Johnson, Kelly, Montemuro, Popovich, Sole, Tamilia
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Reversed by J.H. France Refractories Co. v. Allstate Insurance, 521 Pa. 91 (1989).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6308025

## Opinion text

CIRILLO, President Judge,
dissenting:
I join Judge Brosky’s dissenting opinion. I write separately only to emphasize my disagreement with the majority’s implication that a court’s jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action hinges on whether or not new plaintiffs will file new lawsuits during the pendency of the action.
In Vale Chemical Co. v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 512 Pa. 290 , 516 A.2d 684 (1986), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sandra Smith, the tort plaintiff involved in the original case, was not joined in the subsequent declaratory judgment action. The court stated: “While we recognize the importance of the ques *585 tions involved in this matter, importance alone does not confer jurisdiction where it does not otherwise exist.” Id., 512 Pa. at 296 , 516 A.2d at 687-88 (emphasis added). In the case before us, unlike the situation in Vale, the court had jurisdiction at the time the action was filed. It was only since the filing of the declaratory judgment action that additional lawsuits were filed. I agree with Judge Brosky that the filing of additional lawsuits cannot divest a court of jurisdiction where it otherwise exists. See generally 20 Am.Jur.2d, Courts § 147.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6308025. Public record. Not legal advice.