In so ruling, the Pennsylvania Superior Court
overturned a $38.5 million punitive damages verdict awarded to the families of
two employees who were killed by a disgruntled co-worker in a factory shooting.
According to the Opinion, the plaintiffs initially
sought punitive damages, but later the parties entered a stipulation for the withdrawal of the punitive damages claim. Thereafter,
the plaintiffs secured new counsel and, during the course of the trial of the
matter and after the statute of limitations had expired, the plaintiffs were permitted by the trial court to reintroduce and
pursue the punitive damages claim.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the
reintroduction of the punitive damages claims merely amounted to an amendment
to the ad damnum clause outlining the damages, rather than the identification
of a separate cause of action.
The Superior Court panel disagreed and ruled that
the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to reintroduce the claim for
punitive damages after the statute of limitations had expired. The Superior Court treated the withdrawal of the punitive damages claims as being analogous to the voluntary withdrawal of a suit, which action does not serve to toll the statute of limitations. The Court also noted in footnote 27 that allowing
the punitive damages claim to proceed mid-trial was also prejudicial to the
defendant.
Anyone wishing to review this Opinion online may
click this LINK.
UPDATE: By Order dated September 26, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court withdrew this decision and granted argument en banc. More updates to follow as this issue develops. Click HERE to view this Order.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.