Trial Court Confirms That a Corporation Cannot Assert the Fifth Amendment, But a Corporate Representative Can

In the case of L.V. v. Water Gap Capital Partners, LLC, No. 1189-CV-2025 (C.P. Monroe. Co. June 3, 2025 Zulick, P.J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Stay a civil litigation matter in order to protect the Fifth Amendment rights of their employees and corporate representatives.

The court reviewed the law regarding the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court noted that it is well-settled that a corporate Defendant may not assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 

However, a corporate representative is permitted to assert the privilege if answers in litigation may tend to incriminate the representative personally. However, if the representative whom the corporate appoints to act on its behalf asserts the Fifth Amendment privilege, the corporation must appoint someone else to respond on its behalf unless the corporation can show that there is no corporate representative who could furnish the discovery without the possibility of self-incrimination.

Here, the court noted that certain Defendants were corporate Defendants. Those corporate Defendants did not have the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination available to them.

The court did otherwise note that, as noted above, the corporate Defendants did have a right to appoint a representative to speak on their behalf under the parameters of the law.

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

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 10, 2025).

Pennsylvania's Consent to Jurisdiction By Registering To Do Business In Pennsylvania Valid, But Subject To Continuing Attacks

Tort Talkers may recall the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the validity of Pennsylvania's consent by registration statute.  Under that statute, corporations and companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania thereby consent to subject themselves to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania state courts for lawsuits, even if the underlying accident occurred elsewhere.

A majority of U.S. justices upheld the validity of the statute, determining that it does not violate due process violations, and remanded the case back to Pennsylvania.  Yet, commentators note that the language of a Concurring Opinion by Justice Alito may spur Defendants to continue to attack the statute.

Under a recent Order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court punted and remanded the issue all the way back down to the trial court for consideration, thereby rejecting the Defendants' attempt at a fast-tracked review by the Commonwealth's highest Court on continuing challenges to the question of whether or not Pennsylvania's consent by registration statute violates the U.S. Constitution.

Anyone wishing to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Order in this regard may click this LINK.

Presently, the statute providing that a corporation's registration to do business in Pennsylvania thereby subjects that corporation to Pennsylvania state court jurisdiction over personal injury lawsuits remains valid but subject to continuing attacks.

Source of image:  Photo by Jackie Hope on www.unsplash.com.

Court Says No to Philadelphia County Venue

City Hall - Philadelphia

In the non-precedential case of Dibble v. Page Transp., Inc., No. 565 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Nov. 19, 2021) (en banc) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the court addressed an appeal from a trial court order that sustained the Preliminary Objections of a Defendant claiming that venue was improper in Philadelphia County in transferring the case to Dauphin County. 

Although unpublished, this Opinion provides a nice review of the current status of Pennsylvania law on the venue rules in Pennsylvania as applied against corporations.

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


I send thanks to Attorney John G. Devlin of Devlin Associates, P.C. in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Soure of image: Photo by Garrison Gao from www.pexels.com.

Court Addresses Proper Venue for a Corporate Defendant

In the case of Schultz v. Plough, No. 10524 (C.P. Lawr. Co. Aug. 5, 2021 Cox, J.), in addressing Preliminary Objections raising the issue of proper venue for the action, the court found that the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that a corporate Defendant regularly conducted business in Lawrence County as per Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a).

This matter arose out of a multi-vehicle accident that also involved damages to utility poles and personal injuries to people involved in the accident.

The Defendants argued that none of the parties resided or maintained a principle place of business within Lawrence County. The Defendant also asserted that the events associated with the claims raised by the Plaintiff occurred in a different county, that being Crawford County.

After reviewing the record before it, the court noted that the Defendant maintained communication liens, utility poles, and other hardware within Lawrence County.

The Plaintiff had also argued that the Defendant was the sole communications provider for parts of Lawrence County and also advertised in Lawrence County.

The court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a), allowed an action against the corporate Defendant to be pled in a county where the corporate Defendant regularly conducted business. The court reviewed the record and found that the corporation performed acts of sufficient quality and quantity to establish venue within Lawrence County.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 5, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Caleb Ruiter on Unsplash.com.

Jurisdiction Found To Lie In Pennsylvania Over Foreign Corporation

In the case of Webb-Benjamin LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC, 2018 Pa. Super. 187 (Pa. Super. June 28, 2018 Stabile, J., Musmanno, J. and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Op. by Musmanno, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court’s decision sustaining the Preliminary Objections filed by a Connecticut Defendant.  

The Superior Court ruled that the trial court erred in holding that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Connecticut company in a breach of contract action because the Defendant registered to do business in Pennsylvania as a foreign association and nothing under 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5301 limited jurisdiction over foreign associations to claims that only occurred after registration.

The Superior Court additionally found that, by registering in Pennsylvania to do business, the Connecticut Defendant consented to general personal jurisdiction.

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Cases.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 24, 2018).  


For an excellent analysis on this issue, check out this LINK to an article by Attorney Dale Larrimore of the Philadelphia law firm of Larrimore & Farnish, LLP entitled "Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Corporations After Daimler - What Now?"

Updates, Thoughts and Trends Regarding Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Law by

Northeastern Pennsylvania Insurance Defense Attorney Daniel E. Cummins

Personal Jurisdiction on Out-of-State Entity Not Established by Presence of Subsidiary Company in Pennsylvania

Federal court personal jurisdiction issues were reviewed in the case of Esposito v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., No. 17 - CV - 2936 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2018 Surrick, J.).

In this Esposito decision, the court dismissed a non-resident Plaintiff’s slip and fall claims against a non-resident Defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Plaintiff allegedly fell at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The court found that the fact that the non-resident Defendant also operated a separately incorporated Pennsylvania subsidiary, which was the Sands Bethlehem Casino in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, did not expose that Defendant to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania for out-of-state claims not involving any activity of that subsidiary. 

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a parent corporation does not carry on “a continuous and systematic” business through separately incorporated subsidiaries. 

The court also found that the out-of-state Defendant was not subject to general jurisdiction because Pennsylvania was neither the state of that Defendant’s incorporation nor the location of that Defendant’s principal place of business.

The court ultimately ruled that this matter would be transferred to the place where the accident happened.  

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

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

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Test for Proper Venue Over Corporate Defendant ("Non-Precedential" But Still Informative)

In a recent memorandum, "non-precedential" decision in the case of Gordon v. JFBB Ski Areas, Inc.,  (Pa.Super. Feb. 13, 2015 Lazarus, Wecht, and Strassburger, J.J.)(mem. op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the test of proper venue for a corporate defendant based upon the analysis of where the Defendant corporation conducted business in the Commonwealth.

Judge David N. Wecht
Pennsylvania Superior Court

Applying Pa.R.C.P. 2179 and related case law, Judge Wecht's Opinion in Gordon, albeit marked "non-precedential," could serve as a good starting point for a review of the current status of the law in this regard.

The court ultimately ruled that incidental advertising activities by a ski resort, even if such activities resulted in a small percentage of sales in a certain jurisdiction did not constitute sufficient contacts to justify venue in a certain county.

In this matter, the court ultimately affirmed the Philadelphia County trial court's sustaining of a Defendant's Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue and transferring a personal injury matter from Philadelphia County to Carbon County where the Defendant ski resort was located and where the Plaintiff was injured.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Judge Wettick: Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Continue For Defunct Companies

In his recent decision in the case of Red Vision Systems, Inc. et al. v. National Real Estate Information Services, L.P, et al., No. GD - 13 - 008572 (C.P. Allegh. Co. Feb. 26, 2014 Wettick, J.), Judge Wettick dealt with the novel issue of the application of the attorney-client privilege in the context of a request for the production of documents propounded upon a dissolved/non-operating company. 

After a thorough review of the scope of the attorney-client privilege, Judge Wettick ultimately ruled that the privilege did not extend to corporations that were no longer in business.  Accordingly, a former in-house counsel for several defunct companies was ordered to turn over documents in discovery related to status of the companies' assets.

Judge R. Stanton Wettick
Allegheny County

Judge Wettick rejected an effort to compare the situation of a dissolved corporation to that of a deceased person -- the attorney-client privilege is deemed to continue once a person passes away.  The court noted that the same concerns of confidentiality do not exist in the corporate setting as corporate officials can not expect the same level of privacy or confidentiality once a corporation goes out of business as the new management of the company or a trustee in bankruptcy may be entitled to access to the information at issue.

It is noted that Judge Wettick's decision was recently appealed up to the Superior Court.

Judge Wettick's decision may be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney Roy Leonard of the Stonecipher Law Firm in Pittsburgh for bringing this case to my attention.


Source of top image:  www.legalfinancejournal.com