Trial Court Requests Affirmance of its Order Transferring Venue of a Nursing Home Negligence Case Out of Philadelphia and to Delaware County

In the case of Bennett v. Providence Operator, LLC, No. June Term, 2024, No. 240603252 (C.P. Phila. Co. March 4, 2026 Cohen, J.), the trial court judge issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s finding that venue was improper in this nursing home malpractice case filed in Philadelphia County. The trial court had transferred the case to Delaware County after finding that all relevant conduct occurred at the Defendant’s facility that was located in Delaware County. The court noted that the Defendant only had incidental marketing contacts with Philadelphia County.

As such, the trial court had granted the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections as to improper venue.

The court otherwise emphasized that advertising and solicitation do not constitute conducting business. 

The court additionally noted that any revenue generated from Philadelphia residents at the Defendant’s facility was incidental to the care provided in Delaware County.

The trial court additionally rejected the argument that venue was proper in Philadelphia County given that the pre-admission assessment was conducted while the Plaintiff’s decedent was hospitalized in Philadelphia. The court rejected the argument that this constituted a transaction giving rise to the cause of action. 

Rather, the court found that the claims instead of arose from the care provided at the Defendant’s facility and not from the admission decision itself. In this case, the claims of injury were with respect to a fall down event that the Plaintiff decedent allegedly had at the facility in Delaware County.

As such, the trial court found that all relevant transactions and occurrences took place in Delaware County, where the alleged negligence occurred. 

Accordingly, the trial court urged the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s finding that venue in Philadelphia County was improper and that the Order transferring the case to Delaware County should be affirmed.

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 2, 2026).

Philadelphia County Court Grants Defendant's Request To Transfer Med Mal Case to a Different County

In the case of McDonald v. York Hospital, Oct. Term 2023, No. 2872 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 11, 2025 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision to transfer a medical malpractice case from Philadelphia County to York County.

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of an alleged medical malpractice from a heart surgery that took place in York County, Pennsylvania.

After the Plaintiff filed suit in Philadelphia County, the issue of venue eventually came before the trial court.

The Defendants argued that their business activities in Philadelphia County were incidental and not sufficient to establish venue.

The court found that the Defendant’s contacts with Philadelphia County were primarily educational and incidental, thereby not meeting the quality and quantity of contacts required to establish venue under Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a)(2).

The court determined that the Defendants’ core mission was to provide healthcare services in Central Pennsylvania and that any affiliations with any Philadelphia institutions was not essential to this mission.

As such, the court sustained Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendants regarding venue and transferred the case to York County where the cause of action arose and where the Defendants had their principal place of business.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 26, 2026).

Philadelphia County Matter Coordinated to Matter in Jefferson County Arising Out of Same Incident

Jefferson County Courthouse

In the case of Bucci Express, LLC v. SG Freight, Inc., No. 263-CV-2025 C.D. (C.P. Jeff. Co. Dec. 29, 2025 Foradora, P.J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion for Coordination of Actions in different counties relative to separate claims arising out of the same trucking accident, one of which was filed in Jefferson County and one of which was filed in Philadelphia County. The court ruled that the Philadelphia County lawsuit would be coordinated with the case that was filed in Jefferson County. The court made this ruling pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 213.1.

According to this Opinion, this matter arose out of a fatal multi-vehicle crash involving commercial trucks. Following the crash, two (2) trucking companies files suit in Jefferson County against multiple Defendants, including Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Jefferson County lawsuit was improperly filed to block proceedings in Philadelphia County.

In issuing his ruling, the court noted that PennDOT’s presence in the case weighed heavily in the decision, noting that state law limits where that agency can be sued. The court noted that keeping the case out of Jefferson County would effectively block the Plaintiffs from pursuing certain claims against PennDOT under the applicable law.

Although the court acknowledged that Philadelphia County may have been more convenient for some of the parties in that case, the court found that key witnesses, including first responders, were based in Jefferson County and should not be required to travel long distances.

Judge Foradora also noted that many pre-trial proceedings could be handled remotely, thereby reducing travel burdens on lawyers and witnesses.

The court additionally noted that, by coordinating the lawsuits, duplicative and inconsistent rulings, Orders, or judgments would be avoided a judicial economy furthered.

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

Source: Article “Venue Fight Ends As Court Moves Fatal Trucking Cases Outside Of Phila. Courts” By Tristin Hoffman of The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 30, 2025).

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court Decision Granting Preliminary Objections To Venue

In its Non-precedential decision in the case of Ojo v. Hanover Foods Corp., No. 2037 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 25, 2025 Panella, J., Nichols, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections asserting that venue was not proper in Philadelphia County. 

The court in this matter reviewed the record and stated that there was no evidence that the Defendants in this matter regularly conducted business in Philadelphia. The court noted that the Defendant did not have any products in Philadelphia or any physical presence in that County.

The court noted that the mere shipment of raw materials in sealed containers does not constitute conducting business in this context.

The court also ruled that the purchasing of products from Philadelphia suppliers did not constitute doing business in Philadelphia in this context.

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


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

Federal Court Motion To Transfer Denied

In the case of Bryne v. Terex USA, LLC, No. 2:25-CV-00586-GAM (E.D. Pa. McHugh, J. Oct. 28, 2025), the court denied a Motion by a Defendant to Transfer a case from the Eastern District to the Middle District, where the alleged accident occurred.

In so ruling, the court noted that, under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), District Courts may transfer a case to another district where venue is proper “for the convenience of parties and witnesses or in the interests of justice.”

The court applied the various factors set forth in the case of Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995) to support the denial of the Motion to Transfer.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Fed. Judge Rejects Manufacturer’s Attempt to Move Product Liability Suit to Middle District,” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Oct. 30, 2025).

Court Finds That Defendant Failed To Produce Evidence in Support of Improper Venue Argument

In the case of Barnowski v. CBRE Global Investors, LLC, No. 2023-CV-2568 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 2, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed venue issues in a premises liability action.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff commenced this premises liability lawsuit against two (2) owners of a property that was located in Montgomery County where the Plaintiff allegedly fell. 

The Plaintiff asserted that venue was proper in Lackawanna County under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c) and 2179(a)(2) since he alleged joint and several liability and given that one of the Defendants allegedly regularly conducted business in Lackawanna County.

The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue. 

Given that the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections were not supported by affidavits or evidence, the parties were initially directed to conduct venue-related discovery pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(c)(2) and to, thereafter, resubmit the issue to the court.

During the course of that discovery, the Defendants produced a corporate designee who testified under oath that she did not know whether the Defendant’s conducted any business in Lackawanna County or owned any property or employed any workers in this county.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

The court noted that the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue was resubmitted to the court for a decision based upon the limited evidentiary record noted above.

In his decision, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reaffirmed well-settled law of Pennsylvania that a Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to “great weight.” 

The court also noted that the Defendants had the burden of producing evidence to establish that venue was improper in the chosen forum and that a change of venue was warranted.

The court found that the Defendants, despite being afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence to support their improper venue argument, had failed to do so. As such, Judge Nealon ruled that, given that the Plaintiff had asserted joint and several liability against the Defendants, venue is proper as to both Defendants and the Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue with respect to Lackawanna County was overruled.

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


Source: Lackawanna Jurist (Oct. 31, 2025).

PA Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, Inc., No. 32 EAP 2024 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided clarity on the test to be applied in reviewing a Petition to Transfer Venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a multi-vehicle collision that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania involving a passenger bus and commercial vehicles. The crash resulted in five (5) deaths and numerous injuries.

Plaintiffs who resided in various locations across the country and abroad, filed personal injury lawsuits in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against several corporate Defendants, all of which conducted business nationwide.

The Defendants sought to transfer the cases to Westmoreland County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Defendants argued that a majority of the witnesses, including first responders and investigators, were located in Westmoreland County and would face significant hardship if required to travel over two hundred (200) miles to Philadelphia for trial.

The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted the Defendants’ Petition to Transfer under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court reversed, holding that the Defendants failed to show that the identified witnesses were “key witnesses” whose testimony was “critical” to the defense. The Superior Court also found that the affidavits of the witnesses provided did not sufficiently detail the necessity of the witnesses’ testimonies.

Higher up on the appellate ladder, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court’s decision in this matter.

The Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of a “key witness” requirement was inconsistent with Pennsylvania precedent on the issue of the evidence required to secure a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Supreme Court clarified that a party seeking a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens must identify the burdened witnesses and provide a general statement of their respective testimony. The Supreme Court confirmed that the petitioner need not show that the testimony of the witnesses is “critical” or “necessary” to the defense.

As such, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to transfer the cases out of Philadelphia County and to Westmoreland County as a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring Opinion by Justice Mundy can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Sept. 26, 2025).

Superior Court Provides Further Guidance on Quality/Quantity of Contacts Test for Venue Over a Defendant in a Particular County

In the case of Pickering v. Associated Realty Prop. Mngt., Inc., 2446 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 18, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Kunselman, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the appellate court affirmed a trial court Order sustaining Preliminary Objections as to venue and transferring a Philadelphia County case to Centre County, the location of the Plaintiff’s decedent’s death.

The Superior Court noted that whether the Defendants regularly conduct business in a particular county typically presents a mixed question of fact and law, with questions of fact dominating.

Accordingly, the Superior Court noted that Pennsylvania trial courts have wide discretion in determining if venue is proper based upon a Defendant’s business activities.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff's decedent fell through an 11-floor access hatch to a garbage shoot. The Plaintiff's decedent sustained fatal injuries.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff's decedent had leased a condominium unit in the building from an individual who lived in Virgina. The condominium unit was located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Neither the condominium nor the unit owner had any contact with Philadelphia County.

The court reviewed the contact that the various other Defendants who had manufactured and/or built the access hatches in the building. The court noted that none of those Defendants had any physical presence, employees, or agents located in Philadelphia County. However, the businesses, which were headquartered in California, did conduct business in Philadelphia County.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that trial courts can compare county sales to a company’s national sales figures when determining whether venue is proper in a particular county. The Superior Court rejected a Plaintiff’s argument that only a company’s county-by-county Pennsylvania sales should be reviewed when determining venue.

The appellate court noted that comparing county sales to a company’s national figures sales would paint a more accurate picture of the extent that the company actually conducted business in a particular county in Pennsylvania.

As noted, the court affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections on the issue of venue, which resulted in the case being transferred out of Philadelphia and over to Centre County.

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


Source: Article – “Courts Can Look To National Sales Figures When Determining Venue, Pa. Superior Court Clarifies,” By Rile Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 19, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Ali Rezaei on www.unsplash.com.

The Bus Stops Here: Trial Court Finds Venue Proper in Philadelphia Based on Busing Company's Defendant's Periodic Contacts in the County

Philadelphia Skyline

In the case of Warren v. Heagy, No. 240100294 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 2025 Anders, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s Order overruling the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which a bus owned by the Defendant bus company collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Defendants asserted in Preliminary Objections that the Defendant bus company had no physical presence in Philadelphia County, did not derive any revenue from customers located in Philadelphia County, and does not perform acts or maintain contacts in Philadelphia County sufficient to satisfy the quality-quantity tests for venue.

The court overruled the Preliminary Objections after noting that the record revealed that the Defendant bus company is in the business of transporting students to and from school and activities, including transporting students into Philadelphia County for purposes of activity such as field trips. It was noted that over the years, the business company had transported students into Philadelphia County about 10 times during one school year and 10 times during another school year, and 23-30 times on another recent school year.

After reviewing the law regarding the quality-quantity tests for proper venue, the court ruled that the evidence before it demonstrated that the Defendant regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County.

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 2, 2025).

Superior Court Upholds a Forum Selection Clause Found in Consent To Treatment Form in Medical Malpractice Case

In the medical malpractice case of Somerlot v. Jung, No. 2578-EDA-2024 (Pa. Super. July 30, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Kunselman, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the validity of forum selection clauses in a medical consent form.

According to the Opinion, in this personal injury action, the Plaintiff had undergone treatment with certain medical providers and, under the contract entered into with those medical providers, the Plaintiff agreed that any litigation would be pursued solely in Bucks County.

The Plaintiff brought this personal injury lawsuit in Philadelphia County.

The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Philadelphia County Court transferring the case to Bucks County based upon the forum selection clause.

The Superior Court upheld the general principle of contract law that the parties are free to pre-select among all possible proper venues as to which venue would be utilized to decide any legal disputes that might arise between them. Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

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

Philadelphia Trial Court Transfer Venue of Case to Wayne County

In the case of M.O. v. Lavco, LLC, No. 240800817 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 5, 2025 Anders, J.), the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its Order sustaining the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to venue only and transferring the case to Wayne County.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a negligence claim asserted against a summer camp for children located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The details of the underlying incident were not provided in the Opinion.

The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections arguing that venue for the action was not proper in Philadelphia County.

After the parties completed discovery under venue issue, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections.

The court noted that, although the Defendant advertised itself to Philadelphia County residents, no Philadelphia County residents had attended the camp between 2020 and 2022, one child had done so in 2023, and two children had done so in 2024.

It was additionally noted that an organization based in Philadelphia County had paid funds to the Defendant to facility the attendance of dozens of campers at the Wayne County camp.

The court sustained the Preliminary Objections to venue and ordered that the case be transferred to Wayne County. The court noted that the Defendant’s registered office and principle place of business were not located in Philadelphia County, but rather, was located in Wayne County. The court otherwise found that the Defendant camp did not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County.

It was additionally noted that the cause of action arose in Wayne County.

The court otherwise found that the quality and quantity of the Defendant’s contacts with Philadelphia County did not rise to the necessary level to subject the Defendant to venue in Philadelphia County.

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 2, 2025).

Article: The Appellate Ladder Looks Inviting For Plaintiffs

The below article of mine appeared in the July 24, 2025 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission.

Expert Opinion

The Appellate Ladder Looks Inviting for Plaintiffs


July 24, 2025

By

Daniel E. Cummins

Recent decisions from the Pennsylvania Supreme confirm that plaintiffs continue to a pendulum shift in their favor. Over the past year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was beginning to show signs of moderation relative to their previous line of trailblazing decisions that overturned years of precedent in a plaintiff-favorable manner.

However, with its recent decisions, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has again expanded the rights of injured parties to recover and have even telegraphed to the plaintiffs bar how to secure additional victories in the future.

Recent Decisions by Pa. Supreme Court to Expand Ability to Recover

For nearly the past decade, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has issued one decision after another in favor of plaintiffs' causes. The plaintiffs bar has been repeatedly successful in convincing the court to overturn decades-long precedent that previously favored defendants.

For example, in Cagey v. PennDOT, 179 A.3d 458 (Pa. 2018), the plaintiffs bar convinced the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the then-12-year-old Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision in Fagan v. Department of Transportation, 946 A.2d 1123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), to hold that PennDOT should only be immune from suit in guide rail claims in limited circumstances. Prior to Cagey, PennDOT was largely protected from any liability exposure relative to accidents involving guide rails. This decision expanded the ability of parties injured in highway accidents to include PennDOT in the lawsuit in the effort to seek an additional compensation.

In 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also expanded the ability of injured parties to seek recoveries by handing down another significant reversal of long-standing precedent. In the case of Balentine v. Chester Water Authority, 191 A.3d 799 (Pa. 2018), the Supreme Court liberalized the ability of injured parties to seek recoveries from governmental agencies.

The Supreme Court in Balentine overturned 30 years of precedent with its holding that the involuntary movement of a vehicle can constitute an “operation” of a motor vehicle for purposes of the vehicle liability exception to governmental immunity under 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8542(b)(1). This ruling expanded the number of cases that would therefore fall within the scope of the exception to immunity. In other words, the ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows more injured parties to seek a recovery against negligent governmental agencies.

A recent example of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court actually going too far in overturning long-standing defense-favorable precedent can be seen in the case of Gallagher v. GEICO, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019). In Gallagher, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned 20 years of precedent and held that the household exclusion found under automobile insurance policies was completely unenforceable as a matter of law across the board.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated its plaintiffs-friendly stance on the household exclusion in the case of Donovan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 256 A.3d 1145 (Pa. 2021). In Donovan, the court reaffirmed its previous decision in Gallagher v. GEICO and again held that plaintiffs need not worry about the household exclusion provision as it was invalid and, therefore, unenforceable.

The Gallagher decision threw the lower state and federal courts into a tizzy of conflicting decisions on whether the household exclusion should still be found to be enforceable under different factual scenarios.

Thereafter, without overtly acknowledging that the Gallagher decision went too far, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court walked back Gallagher’s complete eradication of the enforceability of the household exclusion in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mione, 289 A.3d 524 (Pa. 2023). In Mione, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court limited the Gallagher decision to its facts and agreed that the household exclusion did indeed remain valid and enforceable in at least certain circumstances.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also recently expanded the right of injured parties to recover in arbitration matters. In 2022, the court promulgated a new Rule that amended Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1311.1, which applies to appeals from courthouse arbitration proceedings. Under the new Rule 1311.1, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court increased the maximum limit on the amount of money that a plaintiff can recover in money damages at trial on appeal from an arbitration award.

Under the old rule, that limit was set at $25,000. Under the new rule, the maximum limit has been changed to “an amount equal to the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration of the judicial district in which the action was filed.” In most counties in Pennsylvania, the arbitration jurisdictional limit is $50,000. As such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court essentially doubled the amount of money injured parties can potentially recover at trials following an appeal from an arbitration.

Recent Decisions That Limited Certain Defenses

In recent years, in addition to expanding avenues of recoveries for injured parties, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also benefited plaintiffs by limiting the scope of a wide variety of defenses in civil litigation matters.

In the case of Graham v. Check, 243 A.3d 153 (Pa. 2020), the plaintiffs were successful in convincing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to limit the application of the sudden emergency doctrine. With this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it is likely that the application of the sudden emergency doctrine will no longer be automatically applied in dart-out pedestrian cases, particularly where a plaintiff darts out within a crosswalk.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also limited venue defenses by liberalizing the rules governing where a plaintiff may file their lawsuit.

In another the limitation of venue defenses, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in the case of Fox v. Smith, 263 A.3d 555 (Pa. 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, given that the internet is available essentially everywhere, an internet defamation case may be filed anywhere in Pennsylvania, thereby allowing the plaintiffs to file such claims in the most liberal courts in Pennsylvania if they deem that appropriate.

Back in 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court undid a 20-year-old Rule of Civil Procedure and approved plaintiffs-favorable amendments to the medical malpractice venue rules. Under the new medical malpractice litigation venue rules, plaintiffs now have wider options in terms of where they can file their medical malpractice lawsuits.

Hints at Moderation

In three recent decisions, all of which were expected to result in plaintiffs-favorable rulings, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court somewhat surprisingly went the other way.

As noted above, in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mione, 289 A.3d 525 (Pa. Feb. 15, 2023), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court limited its previous decision in Gallagher v. GEICO on the household exclusion to the facts of that case. The court in Mione instead held that the household exclusion could still be enforced under limited circumstances.

Another example of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that seemed to signal moderation was the case of first impression of Franks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, ___ A.3d ___ No. 42 MAP 2022 (Pa. April 19, 2023) (Op. by Mundy, J.). In Franks, the court addressed issues of the stacking of UIM coverage in the automobile insurance personal injury actions. The court ruled that an insurance company is not required to secure another written waiver of stacked coverage from an insured in certain circumstances and rejected the plaintiff’s argument to the contrary.

Also, in a 2024 decision that was surprising to some, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the continuing validity of the regular use exclusion in the case of Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, ___ A.3d ___, 77 MAP 2023 (Pa. 2024).

Not So Fast

Despite hints at moderation, other recent cases again confirm that the overall orientation of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is to favor plaintiff’s causes in most civil litigation matters.

This is confirmed, in part, by the court’s decision in the case of Brown v. City of Oil City, 294 A.3d 413 (Pa. 2023). With this decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court greatly expanded the ability of plaintiffs to bring lawsuits against construction contractors for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The court in Brown allowed such claims to be brought even if the contractor had completed his or her work on the property years before.

Also, in its recent decision in the case of Steets v. Celebration Fireworks (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board), No. 3 MAP 2024 (Pa. May 30, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent regarding whether specific loss benefits are payable after an employee’s death from causes related to a work injury. In this decision, the Supreme Court created new law and cleared the way for the estates of those individuals who died from work-related injuries to collect specific loss benefits.

Then, just last month, in the case of Jakmian v. City of Philadelphia, No. 266 EAL 2024 (Pa. June 11, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an allowance of an appeal in a civil litigation matter, but Justice Kevin Dougherty issued a concurring opinion that invited plaintiffs to attempt to bring issues regarding the analysis of an exception to sovereign immunity back up the appellate ladder again so that the court could properly review the law on this topic.

In Jakmian, the plaintiff suffered injuries on a Philadelphia street after the front tire of her bicycle became stuck in a SEPTA trolley track that had been out of use for decades. The claims presented raised issues related to applicability of the real estate exception to the Sovereign Immunity Act.

In his concurring opinion, Dougherty seemed to signal that, if the issue were properly before the court, he would have ruled in a fashion that favored the injured party. However, he felt “constrained to agree that an allowance of an appeal is not warranted here.” Yet, Dougherty also wrote “nevertheless, I note my future willingness to explore the issues implicated herein if they arise in a more appropriate case.”

In the end, a review of recent jurisprudence in Pennsylvania confirms that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is not only routinely ruling in favor of plaintiff’s causes but also seemingly inviting the plaintiffs bar to bring more issues up the appellate ladder for the court to consider. Now’s the time for the plaintiffs bar to get whatever important issues they can up to the Supreme Court as often as they can so as to make “good” law. Now is also the time for the defense bar and the carriers to resolve as many of those cases before they reach the Pennsylvania Supreme Court so as to avoid the creation of “bad” law.

Daniel E. Cummins is the managing attorney at Cummins Law where he focuses his practice on motor vehicle and trucking liability cases, products liability matters, and premises liability cases. He also serves as a mediator for the Federal Middle District Court and for Cummins Mediation. He is additionally the sole creator and writer of the Tort Talk Blog at www.TortTalkcom.

Reprinted with permission from the July 24, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

Court Denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine in a Case Involving a Plaintiff from a Foreign Country

In the case of Charles v. QVC, Inc., No. 24-6703 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2025 Savage, J.), the court denied a Motion to Dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a case involving a jurisdictional and/or venue issues in a case involving a Plaintiff who was a resident of a foreign country and who was injured in her home country of Trinidad.

This matter arose out of an incident during which a pressure cooker that the Plaintiff had purchased exploded while the Plaintiff was using it.    

The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.

The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.

More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.

The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.

Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.

The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.

Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.

The court in this matter ruled, after careful consideration of the private and public interest factors, that litigating this case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would not result in oppression and vexation to the defendants out of all proportion to the Plaintiff's convenience. As such, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


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

Eastern District Court Transfers Tioga County MVA Case to Middle District Court Under Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens

In the case of Woodward v. General Motors, LLC, No. 2:25-CV-00605-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 6, 2025 Wolson, J.), the Eastern Federal District Court in Philadelphia granted a Motion to Transfer the case to the Middle District Court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

In this case, the Plaintiff's decedent's fatal motor vehicle accident involved occurred in rural Tioga County, which is located in the Middle District Court's jurisdiction.  In part the Plaintiff's estate stated a crashworthiness products liability claim.

The court noted that, while the Plaintiff would prefer to litigate the case in the Eastern District, all other relevant factors favored the transfer of the case to the district where the accident happened.

The court additionally noted that any claims sounding in product liability are deemed to arise where the product was utilized and where the injury occurred.

In this matter, the court noted that the site of the accident, the relevant evidence, and the important witnesses were all located outside of the Eastern District.

As such, the Court granted General Motors' motion to transfer the case.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


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

Source of image:  Photo from Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts website.

Court Applies Forum Selection Clause Contained in Pre-Surgery Consent Form To Transfer Medical Malpractice Case Out of Philadelphia Venue to Bucks County

In the case of Somerlot v. Jung, Sept. Term 2023, No. 3138 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 25, 2024 Bright, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Pennsylvania Superior Court to uphold the Philadelphia County trial court’s decision to transfer a medical malpractice case from Philadelphia County to Bucks County.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an alleged medical malpractice claim related to a surgery that was rendered in Bucks County to a Bucks County resident Plaintiff by a Bucks County physician/medical practice.

The court based its decision on transferring the case from Philadelphia County to Bucks County on a valid forum selection clause that was contained in a pre-surgery consent form executed by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff pointed to the fact that one of the Defendants, a medical device manufacturer, had previously stipulated with the Plaintiffs that venue was proper in Philadelphia as to that Defendant. However, the trial court noted that the propriety of venue in Philadelphia was not dispositive based on the fact that a Defendant had previously stipulated to venue in Philadelphia. 

Here, the court noted that the injured Plaintiff had contracted to litigate in a different, but also proper venue when the Plaintiff executed the consent form. The trial court held that it was giving preference to the Plaintiffs’ original choice of forum, as reflected in the executed consent form. 

The court additionally noted that litigating the entire case in Bucks County would void splitting the case just as effectively as reversing the transfer of moving the matter back to Philadelphia as was requested by the Plaintiffs. 

The trial court additionally stated that there were no exceptional circumstances present in this case that would warrant straying from the general principle that a valid forum selection clause is to be honored by the courts.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 27, 2025).

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Transfers Case to Centre County as Proper Venue

In the case of Pickering v. Associated Realty Prop. Mgt., Inc., Oct. Term 2023, No. 0613 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 22, 2024 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in support of its granting of a Motion to Transfer of Venue be upheld in this wrongful death action involving a case in which the appellant’s decedent fell down a defective trash shoot in a building owned and/or operated by several of the Defendants.

In this matter, the trial court sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to venue in Philadelphia County and transferred the case to Centre County where the accident occurred.

The court noted that there was no evidence to establish that any of the Defendants regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County for purposes of venue. 

More specifically, the court noted that one of the Defendants had only made eight (8) sales in Philadelphia County over a seven (7) year period. That Defendant had approximately $73,000.00 of total sales in Philadelphia County over the $45 million dollars that the company had made over the seven (7) year period.

As such, the court found the record confirmed that none of the Defendants’ contacts with Philadelphia were regular or habitual enough to make Philadelphia proper venue for this cause of action. As such, the trial court requested the Superior Court to affirm its decision to transfer venue to Centre County where the Plaintiff’s cause of action arose.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 2, 2025).

Superior Court Addresses the Quality-Quantity Test for Proper Venue Over a Corporation in a Given County

In the case of Mendoza-Colon v. Luscomb, Inc., No. 65 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 10, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erroneously granted a transfer of venue motion rather than first ordering venue-related discovery where the evidence indicated that the Defendants offered business services to the county where the case was initially filed.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a resident of Lancaster County who sued Defendants who had a principal place of business in Lycoming County. The Plaintiff also asserted that one of the Defendants also conducted business in Luzerne County.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that she was tasked by her employer with driving her delivery truck to one of the Defendants’ locations in Lycoming County. After the Plaintiff arrived and her truck was loaded, one of the improperly stacked boxes fell on the Plaintiff’s hand, causing injuries.

Although the defendant was primarily located in Lycoming County and although the accident happened in Lycoming County, the Plaintiff filed suit in Luzerne County. The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to venue and requested that the case be transferred from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.

In support of their Preliminary Objections, the Defendants argued that venue was improper in Luzerne County and that the only proper venue was Lycoming County, the location of Gary’s Furniture only place of business. The Defendants noted that no party was a resident of Luzerne County and it was additionally asserted that Gary’s Furniture had never conducted business in Luzerne County.

In response, the Plaintiff asserted that Gary’s Furniture offered free delivery within fifty (50) miles of its retail store, and noted that parts of Luzerne County were within that fifty (50) mile radius.

The trial court ordered a transfer of the venue from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.   

The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s transfer of venue order and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The appellate court reviewed the law of venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179 applicable to corporations.  The Superior Court noted that the determination of whether a corporation  "regularly conducts business" in a particular county depends on the "quality" and "quantity" of the business conducted in a given county.

The Superior Court held that offering free delivery to residents to Luzerne County constituted a furtherance of the Defendants’ business activities that satisfied the “quality” prong of the “regularly conducts business” test.

The Superior Court also held that this evidence was sufficient to warrant the granting of the Plaintiff’s request for venue-related discovery to ascertain the extent or “quantity” of the Defendants’ business activities in Luzerne County. As such, the case was remanded.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 28, 2025).

Venue of UIM Case Transferred Due To Terms of Forum Selection Clause in Policy

In the case of Winner v. Progressive Adv. Ins. Co., March Term, 2023, No. 1654 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 15, 2024 Bright, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion addressed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court relative to an appeal when trial court decisions in response to a Motion to Transfer UIM and Bad Faith Claims from Philadelphia County to Chester County.

In its Opinion, the trial court asserted that it did not commit error in transferring the UIM and bad faith claims from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas based upon an unambiguous forum selection clause contained in the automobile insurance policy at issue.

The trial court also asserted that it did not err in deciding the Preliminary Objections at issue without ruling on discovery motions which, according to the trial court, had become moot.

The trial court also requested that the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law Claim be remanded to the trial court for further consideration.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 23, 2025).

Superior Court Addresses Venue Issues in a Case Originally Filed in Philadelphia

In a non-precedential decision in the case of Troseth v. Carson Helicopters Holdings Co., No. 249 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2024 Bowes, J., Olson, J., McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.) (McLaughlin, J., dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court’s overruling of Preliminary Objections asserted by a Defendant on the issue of proper venue in Philadelphia County.

The court ruled that other Defendants having a contractual relationship with a Philadelphia-based company, largely prior to the filing of the subject lawsuit, was insufficient to support a finding of proper venue in Philadelphia County. The court emphasized that the question of proper venue is to be determined based upon the facts at issue at the point the lawsuit is filed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court otherwise ruled that incidental dealings with a company, not involving a Defendant’s core business purposes, are insufficient to establish venue.

The court more specifically indicated that doing business with a Philadelphia County company does not amount to doing business in Philadelphia County if the obtained goods, services, or personnel are utilized elsewhere to further the Defendant’s business activities.

The court additionally ruled that venue as to a subsidiary does to automatically create proper venue relative to a parent corporation.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.  The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


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

Preliminary Objections Regarding Venue and Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Addressed by Superior Court

In the case of Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., No. 383 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 9, 2024 Collins, J., Stabile, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Collins, J.) (McLaughlin, J. dissenting), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court's granting of a defendant's Preliminary Objections based upon a lack of jurisdiction and also affirmed the dismissal of remaining claims under the doctrine forum non conveniens.

Relative to the issue of jurisdiction, the court found that the Plaintiff asserted no valid basis for jurisdiction over a manufacturer for injuries sustained in a surgery that was completed in a state other than Pennsylvania. 

The court also emphasized that the Defendant was not located in Pennsylvania and the product at issue was never manufactured in the state of Pennsylvania.

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff did not assert general jurisdiction and, as such, any arguments based upon the Pennsylvania registration of the corporation to do business were considered to be waived.  The Plaintiff attempted to request a retroactive application of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. regarding jurisdiction over corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania.  However, the Court found that the Plaintiff had waived this issue of general jurisdiction.

In terms of the Plaintiff's efforts to establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant, the court additionally noted that the fact that the payment for the product at issue was sent to a Pennsylvania lock box was insufficient to support a claim of specific personal jurisdiction against the Defendant. The court emphasized that the lock box had nothing to do with the product liability issue.

The court agreed that the Defendants did not otherwise purposefully direct their activities towards Pennsylvania. Also, the Plaintiff’s claims did not, in any meaningful way, arise out of the use of the lock box. Moreover, the court noted that the lock box belonged to the manufacturer’s bank and not toe the Defendant manufacturer. The court reasoned that if the presence of an independent product distributor is insufficient to support jurisdiction, then the presence of an independent lock box also cannot be sufficient.

Relative to the issues raised under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court found it was also proper for the trial court to have dismissed the case on these grounds as well. In this matter, it was established that every witness was located out of state as were all of the Defendant’s alleged activities related to the lawsuit. The Superior Court agreed that the Defendant had demonstrated the hardship that justified disturbing the Plaintiff’s choice of forum.

The court in Kennedy additionally ruled that the fact that a corporate Defendant had headquarters in Pennsylvania, in and of itself, was not enough to defeat a motion filed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens seeking a transfer of venue.

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.