Trial Court Overrules Preliminary Objections to Allegations of Recklessness and Claims For Punitive Damages

In the case of Fisher v. Leo, No. 2025-CV-05941 (C.P. Luz. Co. Feb. 4, 2026, Pierantoni, J.), the court overruled a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to allegations of recklessness and punitive damages. 

In so ruling, the court cited to the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Monroe v. CBH20, L.P., 286 A.3d 785, 798 (Pa. Super. 2022).

The court also noted that the issue of the validity of claims for recklessness and punitive damages are more appropriate for consideration at the summary judgment stage.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Peter Biscontini of Biscontini Law for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Bucks Trend and Strikes Allegations of Recklessness and Punitive Damages

In the case of Almonte v. Roaring Creek Egg Farms, LLC, No. 2019-CV-03731 (C.P. Luz. Co. Oct. 16, 2024 Pierantoni, J.), the court sustained various Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against allegations of recklessness and claims for punitive damages.

This matter involved a personal injury claim arising out of a fall down event.

The court ruled that all allegations of recklessness and claims for punitive damages in the Second Amended Complaint were stricken without prejudice.  The Plaintiff was permitted to file an Amended Complaint.

No details were provided in the Order as to the rationale of the court in granting these Preliminary Objections.


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

I send thanks to Attorney Ryan McBride of the Scranton, PA office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Split of Authority on Propriety of Allegations of Recklessness Continues

In the case of Meshinski v. Zim, No. 2022-CV-0434 (C.P. Luz. Co. June 27, 2022 Pierantoni, J.), the court sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections asserted against the Plaintiff’s allegations of recklessness in the Plaintiff’s Complaint in this standard motor vehicle accident case.

The Order was issued without Opinion.

The court struck the allegations of recklessness from the Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed the same without prejudice.

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

There remains a split of authority on this issue, not only in Luzerne County, but also across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  

It appears that a strong majority trial courts across Pennsylvania reject the notion that allegations of recklessness can be pled with reckless abandon in any personal injury case whatsoever regardless of the facts presented.  

Those courts in the majority on this issue instead follow the rule of law and the doctrine of stare decisis, as confirmed in numerous Pennsylvania appellate court decisions, that Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading jurisdiction such that sufficient supporting facts must be pled before a claim of recklessness should be allowed to stand. 

A Continuing Trend of Claims Representative Depositions Being Allowed in Luzerne County

Luzerne County Courthouse

In each of the following three (3) Orders (without Opinion) out of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, the court ruled that the claims representatives handling the case for the Defendant’s liability carrier was required to attend a deposition requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

However, the court did note that the Plaintiff would be precluded from questioning the claims representative as to the claims representative’s mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions respecting the value or merit of any claim, any defense thereto, or respecting strategy or tactics with respect to any claim or defense:


The court Order in Ehrmanntraut v. People’s Security Bank and Trust Co., No. 4995-CV-2020 (C.P. Luz Co. Nov. 15, 2021 Hughes, J.), may be viewed at this LINK.


The court Order in Harenza v. House, No. 2019-CV-10883 (C.P. Luz Co. Dec. 2, 2021 Pierantoni, J.), may be viewed at this LINK.


The court Order in Stochla v. Fenner, No. 2019-CV-11607 (C.P. Luz. Co. May 26, 2022 Polachek-Gartley, J.), may be viewed at this LINK.

Trend of Denying Motions to Stay Bad Faith Discovery in Post-Koken Matters Continues in Luzerne County (But Not Necessarily Elsewhere)

In a recent Order without Opinion issued on June 3, 2015, in the case of Pelton  v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2015-CV-1507 (C.P. Luz. Co. June 3, 2015 Pierantoni, J.), Judge Fred A. Pierantoni of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas denied a Motion to Stay Discovery in a Plaintiff’s bad faith claim in a matter where the Plaintiff had already agreed to a severance of the bad faith claim from the post-Koken UIM claims.  

Anyone wishing to secure a copy of this Order may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

 

 

Commentary:

 

While the trend in Luzerne County continues to be a denial of motions to stay bad faith discovery in Post-Koken matters, across the rest of the Commonwealth there appears to be an almost equal split of authority in those few county court decisions from various counties in terms of trial court rulings on such motions.

 

Still no appellate authority to date.

 

For more details in this regard, please go to the Tort Talk blog at www.TortTalk.com and scroll down the right hand column and click on the date noted under the "Post-Koken Scorecard" title.