Zimmerman test in Pennsylvania

2015However, the Zimmerman test does not apply under these circumstances because there has been no showing that Mr. Sandusky worked for PSU beyond 1999 in any capacity and, therefore, there is no need to determine whether this work was done on an employee or independent contractor basis. 21 See Zimmerman v. Public School Employes’ Retirement Board, 513 Pa. 560 , 522 A.2d 43, 44 (1987) (explaining that the ten-factor test applies to determine whether one “is an employee or independent contractor”).

2015However, the Zimmerman test does not apply under these circumstances because there has been no showing that Mr. Sandusky worked for PSU beyond 1999 in any capacity and, therefore, there is no need to determine whether this work was done on an employee or independent contractor basis. 21 See Zimmerman v. Public School Employes’ Retirement Board, 513 Pa. 560 , 522 A.2d 43, 44 (1987) (explaining that the ten-factor test applies to determine whether one “is an employee or independent contractor”).

2021We disagree. - 19 - J-A15001-21 Under Pennsylvania law, “a fiduciary who has negligently caused a loss to an estate may properly be surcharged for the amount of such loss.” In re Estate of Gordon, 511 A.2d 869, 871 (Pa.Super. 1986).

2021Pursuant to 20 Pa.C.S. § 3537, the orphans’ court “shall allow such compensation to the personal representative as shall in the circumstances be reasonable and just[.]” Accordingly, “[t]he determination of the reasonableness of a fiduciary’s compensation is left to the sound discretion of the orphans’ court.” In re Estate of Rees, 625 A.2d 1203, 1206 (Pa.Super. 1993) (cleaned up).

2017Kelley, supra. Next, Zimmerman claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the Commonwealth's violation of the Interstate Agreement on 2 To the extent that Zimmerman's claim is based on a belief that, because a trial court sitting as fact -finder is presumed to ignore prejudicial material, see Commonwealth v. Irwin, 639 A.2d 52, 54 (Pa. Super. 1994), he would not have been entitled to a mistrial had the prosecution committed prejudicial misconduct, his belief is misplaced.

2009On November 10, 2008, Zimmerman filed the appeal now before us. ¶ 7 Our standard of review is “whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion.” The Pietrini Corporation v. Agate Construction Co., Inc., 901 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Pa.Super.2006). ¶ 8 This case is governed by CASPA, a comprehensive statute enacted in 1994 to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors.

2004Co., 566 Pa. 464 , 781 A.2d 1172, 1176 (2001) (citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). 11 Thus, if property damage manifested itself prior to or was in progress at the time insurance coverage commenced, the insurer may argue that the “manifestation” occurred outside the scope of its coverage under the Pennsylvania interpretation of the “known loss” doctrine. ¶ 7 I disagree with the trial court’s finding that Harleysville acted in bad faith in denying the Zimmerman’s claim based on (a) that the facts did not support the invocation of the manifestation theory; and (b) that “it was apparent” that

2004Co., 566 Pa. 464 , 781 A.2d 1172, 1176 (2001) (citation omitted) (emphasis supplied). 11 Thus, if property damage manifested itself prior to or was in progress at the time insurance coverage commenced, the insurer may argue that the “manifestation” occurred outside the scope of its coverage under the Pennsylvania interpretation of the “known loss” doctrine. ¶ 7 I disagree with the trial court’s finding that Harleysville acted in bad faith in denying the Zimmerman’s claim based on (a) that the facts did not support the invocation of the manifestation theory; and (b) that “it was apparent” that