## Facts

- Foster agreed to supply coated steel bridge components for an Ohio bridge project meeting ODOT specifications.
- Foster lacked coating facilities and contracted with Lane to clean and coat components under a purchase order requiring ODOT-compliant work and ODOT inspection approval before shipment, with Stage I and Stage II deliveries.
- Stage I work had contamination trapped under the epoxy coating; ODOT inspectors allowed shipment conditioned on later removal and reapplication.
- Lane informed Foster it was having difficulty removing contaminants and asked whether Foster wanted Lane to coat Stage II or hire another coater.
- ODOT later rejected Stage I components but agreed to accept them after field repairs; another company performed repairs at Lane’s expense and the components were accepted.
- Lane billed Foster about $91,000 for Stage I; Foster withheld roughly 5% due to performance problems and remedial costs.
- Foster conditioned release of the withheld amount on Lane’s assurances it would perform Stage II; Lane refused to commit to Stage II until it received full payment for Stage I.
- After repeated requests for assurances, Foster hired another company to perform Stage II at higher cost.
- Lane sued for the unpaid Stage I balance; Foster counterclaimed for damages tied to replacing Lane for Stage II; after a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Lane.
- The Superior Court reversed on the theory that Lane anticipatorily breached; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review on preservation/waiver and addressed only the procedural issue.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate issues are waived when not raised in post-trial motions as required by Pa. R. Civ. P. 227.1.
2. Whether the Superior Court could reach and decide the merits of Foster’s claims despite the absence of proper issue preservation in post-trial motions.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court.
- The Court held Pa. R. Civ. P. 227.1 requires post-trial motions to preserve issues for appeal, and issues not raised are waived.
- Because Foster did not properly preserve the issues it pursued on appeal, the Superior Court erred by reaching the merits.
- The case was remanded with directions to reinstate the trial court’s verdict in Lane’s favor.

## Legal Principles

- Pa. R. Civ. P. 227.1 requires parties to file post-trial motions to preserve issues for appellate review.
- Issues not raised in post-trial motions are waived and may not be reviewed on appeal.
- An appellate court should not decide unpreserved claims on the merits; the proper remedy is reversal of the appellate disposition and reinstatement of the trial court judgment.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s judgment for Lane because Foster failed to preserve its appellate arguments in Rule 227.1 post-trial motions, rendering those issues waived and barring merits review.


Lane Enters., Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co., 710 A.2d 54 (Pa. 1998)