Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses the Relation Back Doctrine

In the case of Edwards v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 826 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. March 21, 2023 Stabile, J., McCaffery, J., and Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Pellegrini, J.)(Stabile, J., Dissenting), the court addressed the relation back doctrine which, in certain situations, has served to validate the acts of a personal representative of an estate predates their official appointment as the representative of the estate.

In this case, the court considered whether the relation back doctrine applies when a Plaintiff timely files an action on behalf of an estate but does not apply to be appointed to be the personal representative of the estate until after the statute of limitations has run.

The trial court found that the doctrine did apply in this situation and, as such, denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant. 

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed and held that the Plaintiff’s appointment as a personal representative of her late husband’s estate related back to her filing of the Complaint even though the Plaintiff did not apply to be the personal representative of the estate until two (2) months after the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Anyone wishing to review the Majority decision may click this LINK.  Judge Stabile's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney John M. Ranker of the Greensburg, PA law firm of John M. Ranker & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Finds that Relation Back Doctrine Does Not Save Party From Statute of Limitations Argument

In the case of Coleman v. W. Oilfields Supply Co., No. 4:21-CV-00090 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed statute of limitations issues in a trip and fall matter.

In this case, the Plaintiff attempted to secure leave to amend the Complaint to add another Defendant who was allegedly responsible for the condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff’s trip and fall. That Defendant moved to dismiss the matter filed against it as being barred by the statute of limitations.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann 
M.D. Pa.

In response, the Plaintiffs argued that their claims against that new Defendant related back to the claims noted in the original timely filed Complaint.

Judge Brann granted the Motion to Dismiss and agreed with the new Defendant that the Plaintiffs could not rely upon the relation-back doctrine where there was no evidence that the Defendant in question had notice of the action within a 120 days of the date that the action was filed. Nor was there any evidence that the new Defendants should have known that the action would have been filed against it but for a mistake in identity.

The court otherwise found that the new Defendant was not so closely related to the original parties that had been given notice of the action such that notice of the lawsuit could be imputed to the new Defendant through the filing of the original Complaint against the original Defendants.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 22, 2022).

Source of top image:  Photo by Altem Maltsev on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Addresses Procedural Impact of Death of Defendant Before Case Filed (Non-Precedential)

In the non-precedential decision of Vincigueria v. Tunstall, No. 403 WDA 2016 (Pa. Super. Sept. 23, 2016 Lazarus, Olson, Platt, JJ.) (Mem. Op. Platt, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that a trial court properly dismissed a Plaintiff’s action against a driver of the other car involved in the subject motor vehicle accident because the other driver had died before the action was filed, the statute of limitations had expired, and there was no evidence to show any fraudulent concealment in order to toll the statute of limitations.  The court additionally found that the Plaintiff’s own lack of due diligence precluded applying the relation back doctrine. 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed her action more than eight (8) months after the other driver’s death and did not name the other driver’s personal representative as a Defendant and also failed to file any action against the other driver’s estate within one (1) year of the other driver’s death.     It was additionally noted in the Opinion that the Sheriff’s Department had notified the Plaintiff of the other driver’s death when the Sheriff attempted to complete service.  

Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential memorandum opinion may click this LINK.