A reminder courtesy of the Pennsylvania Superior Court:
Initially, we must address the Seller’s position that since Buyer appealed from the order denying post-trial motions rather than the pretrial ruling limiting his claim for consequential damages, we "lack jurisdiction" to "hear his complaints about the pretrial ruling." Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant Michael Bupp at 24, 26. The law is to the contrary.
The pretrial order in question was an interlocutory order because it merely limited the damages recoverable in this action and did not resolve all issues as to all parties or otherwise terminate the litigation. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). The final order in this action was the one that disposed of post-trial motions, which resolved all outstanding claims as to the two parties and from which Buyer filed his timely appeal. It is established that a notice of appeal filed from the entry of the final order in an action draws into question the propriety of any prior non-final orders. K.H. v. J.R., 573 Pa. 481, 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003). As we recently stated:
[I]nterlocutory orders that are not subject to immediate appeal as of right may be reviewed in a subsequent timely appeal of a final appealable order or judgment. Stephens v. Messick, 2002 PA Super 117, 799 A.2d 793, 798 (Pa.Super. 2002); see also Bird Hill Farms, Inc. v. United States Cargo & Courier Service, Inc., 2004 PA Super 66, 845 A.2d 900, 903 (Pa.Super. 2004) (stating that "[o]nce an appeal is filed from a final order, all prior interlocutory orders are subject to review"). Accordingly, interlocutory orders . . . become reviewable on appeal upon the trial court’s entry of a final order[.]
Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 2007 PA Super 159, 926 A.2d 493, 498 (Pa.Super. 2007).
Seller also suggests that Buyer did not "otherwise" preserve his issues for appellate review. Brief of Appellee and Cross-Appellant Michael Bupp at 24. Again, we disagree. Buyer raised the propriety of the order limiting his consequential damages in his post-trial motions, which are devoted entirely to this question. The ruling also was contested pretrial. Thus, we cannot ascertain the basis upon which Buyer urges a finding of waiver.
Quinn v. Bupp, 2008 PA Super 161 * 13 (emphasis added).
Of course, don’t throw the book at the appellate court. See Kanter v. Epstein, 2004 PA Super 470 (by overwhelming the court with issues, "[Defendants] frustrat[ed] this Court’s ability to engage in a meaningful and effective appellate review process"). But make sure all the important court orders, not just the post-trial ones, are addressed.