Superior Court Affirms Entry of Judgment Against a Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Claim Cloaked As A Promissory Estoppel Claim

 In the case of Erie Ins. Exch. v. United Services Auto. Assoc., 2022 Pa. Super. 207 (Pa. Super. Dec. 6, 2022 Olson, J., Colins, J., Dubow, J.) (Op. by Colins, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that there is no recognized cause of action in Pennsylvania for negligent spoliation of evidence.

In this matter, in which involved fire damage claims and the right to conduct an investigation as to the cause of a fire, the court granted summary judgment for the Defendant on a promissory estoppel claim which claim was brought in an effort to recover damages for the negligent spoliation based upon an agreement to indefinitely preserve evidence.   

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the promissory estoppel claim was essentially disguised as a negligent spoliation of evidence cause of action. Since such claims are not recognized in Pennsylvania, the Court affirmed the entry of judgment against this promissory estoppel claim.

While a Link to the decision was previously provided in this post, this post was updated once that Opinion was withdrawn by the Court in light of the fact that the case was moving on to an en banc consideration.

Source:  “Court Summaries.”  by Timothy L. Clawges in the Pennsylvania Bar News (Jan. 2, 2023).

UPDATE: This decision was withdrawn by the Superior Court under an Order dated February 9, 2023 when it granted a reargument en banc.

I send thanks to Attorney Brook T. Dirlam of the Pittsburgh, PA office of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer for letting me know this update.

Court Enters Judgment on the Pleadings on Promissory Estoppel Claim Based on Claims that Liability Carrier Allegedly Promised to Admit Liability Prior to Suit Being Filed

In a detailed Order, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings relative to a promissory estoppel claim asserted by the Plaintiff in the slip and fall case of McCullon v. Byers, No. 21-CV-3832 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb, 9, 2022 Nealon, J.).

In this slip and fall case, the Plaintiff asserted that, prior to the litigation commencing, the alleged tortfeasor Defendant’s liability carrier had allegedly promised to the Plaintiff that the carrier would admit liability for the happening of the Plaintiff’s accident. The Plaintiff asserted that, on the basis of that alleged promise, Plaintiff’s counsel did not conduct any detailed discovery into the liability issues.

In the lawsuit filed against the Defendants, the Plaintiff asserted lump sum allegations against both Defendants, that is, the alleged insured tortfeasor and his liability carrier. 

In Count I, the Plaintiff alleged typical negligence cause of action relative to her allegedly slip and fall event down outside steps of the Defendant’s premises. 

In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff generally alleged a claim of promissory estoppel and asserted that the Defendants should not be permitted to now deny liability based upon the alleged previous promise by the liability carrier not to contest liability.

With respect to this Order, the tortfeasor Defendant had filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting that he himself never made any promises to the Plaintiff and that, as such, the Plaintiff was not able to meet the elements of a claim of promissory estoppel. The tortfeasor Defendant also asserted that, in addition to not making any promises to the Plaintiff in this regard, the tortfeasor Defendant also asserted that he filed an Answer and New Matter not only denying liability but also alleging, in part, that the Plaintiff’s own contributory negligence was the cause of the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages.

After reviewing the elements of a cause of action for promissory estoppel, the court ruled in favor of the tortfeasor Defendant and granted a judgment on the pleadings relative to the promissory estoppel claim.

This decision is also notable for the fact that, in footnote 1 of the Order, the court also noted that it is improper to generally allege claims against all Defendants in a Complaint in a lump sum fashion.


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