In 2019, four homeowners filed lawsuits against Philadelphia-based Streamline Solutions LLC, Nineteenth Street Development LLC, and Harman Deutsch Corporation, alleging construction defects in their newly built homes. The cases were later consolidated for discovery and trial. Streamline Solutions often acts as a general contractor, Nineteenth Street Development as a project developer, and Harman Deutsch Corporation gets involved in legal representation related to construction disputes arising from these projects.
Evanston Insurance was not a named party in the lawsuit, but it provided legal defense for Streamline and Nineteenth Street under their commercial liability insurance policies. The company later sought to intervene in the trial, arguing that special jury interrogatories were necessary to determine which portions of any damages awarded would be covered under its insurance policies.
The jury trial began on June 5, 2023, and was expected to last 10 days. On June 7, 2023, just two days into the trial, Evanston filed a petition to intervene, requesting to submit special jury interrogatories. The company argued that without specific jury findings, it would be difficult to determine whether damages awarded fell within or outside of the scope of its policy coverage.
Evanston also claimed that it had the right to intervene because its appointed defense counsel had a conflict of interest. Since the attorneys defending Streamline and Nineteenth Street owed loyalty to their clients, they could not advocate for Evanston’s interest in limiting insurance payouts.
On June 9, 2023, after hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court denied Evanston's petition. The court ruled that Evanston had waited too long to intervene, despite having been aware of the potential coverage issues since at least July 2022. The judge noted that if Evanston had acted sooner—before trial or even a week earlier—the request would have been considered more favorably.
The court also found that allowing Evanston to intervene mid-trial would have prejudiced the plaintiffs, who had already presented part of their case. Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that if they had known about the proposed special jury interrogatories earlier, they might have adjusted their legal strategy, including presenting additional expert testimony on damages. The jury awarded the four families suing nearly $3.2 million for shoddy workmanship. Although Streamline was also facing other lawsuits over similar shoddy workmanship, these four families were unique, in that their contracts did not have arbitration provisions.
The plaintiffs had bought their homes in 2015 in what they described as the “up-and-coming” Fishtown neighborhood. They said they had chosen purchase newly constructed homes, believing they would require little maintenance and would be a sound investment.
But those expectations were dashed, their lawsuit claimsed when they discovered leaks, mold, and water damage in their homes, which had been purchased for between $515,000 and $590,000.
Evanston appealed the decision, arguing that it had a legal right to intervene under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2327, which allows a party to intervene if they may be impacted by the outcome of a case. However, the Superior Court ruled that while Evanston had the right to request intervention, its request was subject to discretionary limitations under Rule 2329, which permits denial if intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice.
The court emphasized that Evanston had been aware of the insurance coverage concerns for nearly a year before trial but failed to act. Unlike prior cases where insurers successfully intervened early in the litigation process, Evanston waited until after trial had started, at a point where intervention would have disrupted the proceedings and prejudiced the plaintiffs.
The Superior Court also distinguished this case from Bogdan v. American Legion Post 153 Home Ass’n, where an insurer was allowed to intervene because its request was made before trial while discovery was still ongoing. In contrast, Evanston’s request came after key trial proceedings had already begun.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the denial of Evanston Insurance’s intervention, reinforcing the principle that insurers seeking to clarify coverage issues through jury interrogatories must act promptly and before trial begins. The decision serves as a cautionary ruling for insurance companies, highlighting the importance of timely legal action when coverage disputes arise in civil litigation.
Selbovitz, M. v. Streamline Solutions, 2025 Pa. Super. 45
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed: February 25th, 2025
Precedential Status: Precedential
Citations: 2025 Pa. Super. 45
Docket Number: 1431 EDA 2023
