Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Dismissal of Case Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In its non-precedential decision in the case of Gravenor-Reuter v. Acme Markets, Inc., No. 580 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. March 11, 2025 Dubow, J., King, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by Dubow, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved Plaintiffs, who are residents of Delaware, from bringing a lawsuit in Philadelphia County regarding a slip and fall incident that happened in Delaware. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s medical care occurred in Delaware.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that Delaware is an available alternative forum for the Plaintiffs in this matter. The court also ruled that the Plaintiff’s choice of forum received less deference when the Plaintiff had chosen forum that is foreign to where the case can be brought.

In this matter, the court noted that the Plaintiff offered no evidence that any corporate decisions made by the Defendant, which was headquartered elsewhere in Pennsylvania, played any role in the incident that lead to the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court’s decision dismissing the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was not an abuse of discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith office in Philadelphia for brining this case to my attention.

Tort Talk as a Research Tool

 

Most Tort Talkers receive their Tort Talk info by way of email. If you are not already an email subscriber to Tort Talk and would like to become one (it's FREE), please go to Tort Talk at www.TortTalk.com and insert your email address into the Email Subscription box in the upper right hand corner of the blog and follow the instructions to complete the process.

Once you are up and running, you will automatically receive the updated posts added to Tort Talk (an average of 2-3 per week) on notable cases and trends in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Law.

In addition to Tort Talk being a way to get free continuing updates on notable new cases and trends, it can also serve to kickstart your legal research in a streamlined fashion if you actually go to the Tort Talk site at www.TortTalk.com.  

On the site itself there are a number of research tools to help you find the case(s) or article(s) you are looking for.

Please note that Tort Talk is NOT an exhaustive legal research site--you should always supplement your research on your issue(s) presented elsewhere to ensure that you have a thorough review of the area of law in question.  Also, any case you find should be "Shepardized" to see if there has been any more recent, adverse (or favorable) rulings.

Here are the research tools available on Tort Talk that you can use to kickstart and streamline your research:


Search This Blog Box

The "Search This Blog" Box in the upper right hand column of the site allows readers to type in search terms or key words to look for posts on that particular topic. 

By typing in your search term in the white box (terms like, "delay damages," "limited tort," "slip and fall," or a case name, etc.), you will be sent to a page that will list each Tort Talk post that covers that topic. You can then click on a Link within each post that comes up in order to read the actual decision of the court.   

If the blog post does not have a Link to the decision but instead notes that you can email me for a copy, please do not hesitate to send me an email to request a copy of the decision.

Post-Koken Scorecard

You can always access the Post-Koken Scorecard to check on the status of decisions in your county on Post-Koken issues by scrolling down the right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Post-Koken Scorecard."


Facebook Discovery Scorecard

You can always access the Facebook Discovery Scorecard to check on the status of Pennsylvania decisions on Facebook Discovery issues by scrolling down the right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."


Labels

Further down on the right hand column of the Tort Talk blog is a section called "Labels," which is another tool that you can use to find cases or articles on a specific topic.  

The topics, or Labels, are listed in alphabetical order.  

By clicking on the Label that's specific to your research ("Bad Faith," "Limited Tort," "Future Medical Expenses," etc.) you will be sent to a page that list each and every Tort Talk post that touches upon that topic.

Published Articles

If you type the word "Article" in the Search Box on the upper right hand corner of the blog, you will get to a number of different articles on various civil litigation issues.

You can get more specific in your search for an article as well, such as typing "Article recklessness," and that will bring you to an article on that topic.


Links

Last but certainly not least, down on the right hand column is a list of "Links" I have created to other sites, including my Firm's website and other online professional profiles that I have created along with links to some other legal and non-legal-related websites that may be of interest.



Thanks again for reading Tort Talk and thanks to all who have provided tips on breaking news and cases of note. I am grateful for your interest and support of the Tort Talk Blog.  Please feel free to send me a copy of any notable decisions you may generate in your practice for possible highlighting here on Tort Talk.

If I should be able to you help out in any way with respect to research on Tort Talk, or in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net or at 570-591-3969.  

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT (AND CLE)

 

How To Correct The Wrong Name of a Party As Listed in a Writ of Summons

 In the case of Surefire Dividend Capture, L.P. v. The PNC Fin. Serv. Group, Inc., No. 1222 WDA 2023 (Pa. Super. March 10, 2025 Olson, J., Murray, J., and Bender, P.J.E.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court vacated a trial court’s Order permitting an amendment to a Writ of Summons to change the name of the Defendant. The court concluded that, Pa. R.C.P. 1033, by its expressed terms, applied only to pleadings and a Writ of Summons was not a pleading under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1017.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs began a lawsuit against certain Defendants. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033 to amend their Writ of Summons to correct the name of one of the Defendants.

Rule 1033(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time change the form of action, add a person as a party, correct the name of the party, or otherwise amend the pleading.”

In this case, the court emphasized that the Plaintiffs had not yet filed a Complaint.

The Defendants opposed the motion claiming that the rule did not allow a party to amend a Writ of Summons and thereby add an entirely new party as a Defendant.

The Superior Court ruled the pertinent Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that a Writ of Summons is not a pleading.

The court also noted that Rule 1033 was amended in 2014 such that it no longer allowed, and could no longer be construed to permit, the correction of the name of a party in a Writ of Summons.

The Superior Court noted that the Plaintiff’s objective could be accomplished under Pa. R.C.P. 229 by discontinuing the current action and beginning a new lawsuit. The court also noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1033, the Plaintiff could amend the caption of a later pleading by agreement of the party or by leave of court. It was also noted that the Plaintiff could, under Pa. R.C.P. 2232, seek leaving of court for an Order to join a Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (March 25, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Poppy Thomas Hill on www.pexels.com.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Reviews the Current Status of the Law in Pennsylvania on Proper, Timely Service of Process

In the case of Doherty v. Burnham, No. 2024-CV-3829 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 24, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer seeking to dismiss a premises liability action on the grounds that the Plaintiffs failed to effectuate service of original process prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

According to the Opinion, this matter arises out of a slip and fall event that occurred on July 3, 2022. The Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit by filing a Writ of Summons on June 11, 2024, which was about a month before the statute of limitations expired.

The Plaintiff delivered the original process to the Lackawanna County Sheriff to be served. The Sheriff filed a Return of Service indicating that he was unable to serve the Defendant at the address provided given that the Defendant no longer resided at that address.

At that point, the Plaintiff’s attorney immediately undertook efforts to locate the Defendant’s current address. Once the Plaintiff’s attorney discovered the new address for the Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel reissued the Writ of Summons and re-delivered the Writ to the Sheriff for service. This Defendant was then served on August 21, 2024.

In the Preliminary Objections, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant within the thirty (30) day time period required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and given that service of process was not completed until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court noted that, in this case, forty-nine (49) days had passed between the expiration of the statute of limitations and the date service was completed.

The Plaintiffs countered with the argument that they exercise diligent efforts to complete service of process. The Plaintiffs also noted that they properly reissued the Writ of Summons and had additionally notified the Defendant’s carrier of the commencement of the suit by Writ.

In his Opinion, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas provide a thorough recitation of the current status of Pennsylvania law relative to the proper completion of service of original process.

After reviewing that law and applying the same to the facts before him, Judge Nealon ruled that the Plaintiffs had presented evidence that they had diligently attempted to complete service in a timely fashion and that the Plaintiff did not engage in any conduct evincing any intent to stall the judicial machinery the Plaintiff had put in place by filing suit.

As such, the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections were overruled.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Scranton Judge’s Ruling Clarifies Efforts Plaintiffs Must Undergo To Serve Defendants on Time,” By Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (March 25, 2025).

HEADS UP!! THIS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, IS ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONALS DAY

 

This Wednesday, April 23, is Administrative Professionals Day, day to celebrate and say thanks to those who help us to keep it all together and moving forward.

Source of image:  Photo by George Dolgikh on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Addresses Whether Nationwide's "One Product" Policy is a New Policy or a Renewal Policy

In the case of McGuire v. Nationwide Aff. Ins. Co. of America, No. 2:23-CV-01347-NR (W.D. Pa. March 6, 2025 Ranjam, J.), the court denied the carrier’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s previous decision relative to a UM/UIM coverage issue.

With this decision denying the carrier’s Motion for Reconsideration, the court maintained its previous position on whether Nationwide’s “One Product” policy was a new policy or a renewal of a prior policy.

In the court’s eyes, several of the “clarifications” in the One Product policy amounted to changes that reduced the amount of coverage from the prior policy. In light of this, the court ruled that the One Product policy could not be considered to be a “renewal” policy.

Rather, the court found that the purchase of a One Product policy amounted to the purchase of a new policy and that, therefore, under Pennsylvania law, Nationwide was required, as with any other purchase of UM or UIM coverage, to provide its insureds with a new stacking waiver form to execute under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1738(c).

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.