Chief Justice Cappy, 47 Duq. L.Rev. 489, 490 n. 2 (2009) (collecting cases). Here, however, the overruling of Flanagan did not appear as of record — it was accomplished by the Freed majority post hoc. Moreover, the initial judgment was in Petitioners' favor, raising questions as to the appropriate application of the right-for-any-reason principle in the first instance. See id. at 492-97. Indeed, where, as here, the appellee before this Court was the appellant in the intermediate appellate court, we have indicated that matters not raised and preserved in the intermediate appellate court are unavailable for appellate review. See, e.g., In re J.M., 556 Pa. 63, 83 n. 15, 726 A.2d 1041, 1051 n. 15 (1999); accord Commonwealth v. McMullen, 599 Pa. 435, 443 n. 2, 961 A.2d 842, 846 n. 2 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Although Respondent also suggests a futility
holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over the question of whether truck was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident emphasis added holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding that a litigant did not waive a claim because it was the appellee in the intermediate appellate court emphasis added holding that the plain meaning of the statutory language a claim refutes the defendants argument that plaintiff must allege that the anticompetitive effect gives rise to his claim emphasis added holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added