Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules that Punitive Damages Claim May Not Be Added After Expiration of Statute of Limitations Where Such Claim Amounts to New Cause of Action

In the case of Wilson v U.S. Security Associates, No. 2017 Pa. Super. 226 (Pa. Super. July 18, 2017 Dubow, J., Ransom, J., Platt, J.)(Op. by Platt, J.), the Superior Court granted a defendants' motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict with regard to the punitive damages award under a rationale that the trial court improperly allowed the Plaintiff to reinstate a punitive damages claim after the expiration of the statute of limitations.

In so ruling, the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturned a $38.5 million punitive damages verdict awarded to the families of two employees who were killed by a disgruntled co-worker in a factory shooting.

According to the Opinion, the plaintiffs initially sought punitive damages, but later the parties entered a stipulation for the withdrawal of the punitive damages claim.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs secured new counsel and, during the course of the trial of the matter and after the statute of limitations had expired, the plaintiffs were permitted by the trial court to reintroduce and pursue the punitive damages claim.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the reintroduction of the punitive damages claims merely amounted to an amendment to the ad damnum clause outlining the damages, rather than the identification of a separate cause of action.

The Superior Court panel disagreed and ruled that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiffs to reintroduce the claim for punitive damages after the statute of limitations had expired.   The Superior Court treated the withdrawal of the punitive damages claims as being analogous to the voluntary withdrawal of a suit, which action does not serve to toll the statute of limitations. The Court also noted in footnote 27 that allowing the punitive damages claim to proceed mid-trial was also prejudicial to the defendant.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion online may click this LINK.


UPDATE:  By Order dated September 26, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court withdrew this decision and granted argument en banc.  More updates to follow as this issue develops.  Click HERE to view this Order.

Discovery of Private Portions of Plaintiff's Facebook Profile Denied

Another Facebook Discovery decision has been uncovered.  In the case of Clapsadle v. Barkman, No. 2015-1896 (C.P. Franklin Co. Sept. 15, 2016), the court denied a defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to answer interrogatories regarding the content of the plaintiff's private portions of his Facebook profile after finding that the information contained on the public pages did not support an argument that relevant information would be revealed from a review of the private pages.

The court did order a hearing to address issues of spoliation after finding that the plaintiff violated a prior court order that specifically directed the plaintiff not to delete or erase any information on the profile.

I do not have a copy of this decision.  If anyone has access to this decision and is willing to email a copy to me I will upload it online and advise as to its availability in a future Tort Talk post.

Source: Course Material from PAAJ's 2017 Annual Auto Law Update CLE.

Summary Judgment Granted in Monroe County Supermarket Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Baboolal v. Bracey's Mt. Pocono, Inc, No. 8464 CIVIL 2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 27, 2017 Williamson, J.), the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of a Defendant supermarket in a case where a  Plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to a grape and/or moisture on the floor.  

The Plaintiff alleged that he was caused to fall when her shopping cart slid due to moisture on the floor, causing her to fall to her knees and allegedly sustain injuries.  

The court found that there was no evidence of an actual constructive notice on the part of the Defendant store of these conditions.  

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

 Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 23, 2017). 

Summary Judgment Denied in Monroe County Premises Liability Case

In the case of Brown v. Stroud Mall, No. 7599 CIVIL 2013 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 23, 2016 Sibum, J.), the Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of her foot becoming entangled in what appeared to be a wire strung across a hall of a local mall.   The Plaintiff filed a Complaint for negligence.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiff had not established a duty owed to the Plaintiff and/or that the Plaintiff had failed to show actual constructive notice on the wire on the part of the Defendants.  

The Defendants argued that the presence of security staff patrolling the area within an hour of the Plaintiff’s encounter with the wire supported their argument that the wire did not exist for such a period of time that it could have been corrected through the exercise of reasonable care.  

The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment indicating that the question of whether a landowner had constructive notice of a dangerous condition was an issue to be left to the jury to decide where reasonable minds could differ on the issue.  

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 23, 2017).  

TORT TALK PRACTICE TIP

LOOK AHEAD

Periodically look ahead on your calendar 30-45 days to see what’s coming down the pike.  Lawyers hate surprises; clients hate them more. 

By repeatedly looking ahead you may be lucky enough to never again experience that awful feeling in the pit of your stomach that comes when you forgot to tell a client about tomorrow’s settlement conference with the court.

Looking ahead on your calendar also allows you to get a jump start on that motion or brief that may be due 30 days or so down the line.  Having more time to write means having more time to research and edit, and re-edit, which guarantees a better final product that covers all of the applicable law and argument.  

Diversity Minimum Dollar Amount Found to be Met in Federal Court UIM Bad Faith Action

In the case of Koerner v. GEICO, No. 17-455 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2017 Conaboy, J.), the court refused to remand a post-Koken UIM/bad faith litigation to state court.  

In part, the court found that the diversity minimum dollar amount was met because the Complaint sought punitive damages for bad faith which the court found, in theory, makes the amount controversy in excess of $75,000.00.   The court therefore found that federal court jurisdiction was proper regardless of the amount of uninsured motorist coverage available under the policy. 

Anyone wishing to review the Koerner decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris, and the writer of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog, for bringing this case to my attention.   

Post-Koken Venue Decision out of Dauphin County

In a Post-Koken case from back in December, 2016 entitled Colman v. Malave and State Farm, No. 2015-CV-10242 CV (C.P. Dauph. Co. Dec. 13, 2016 Tully, J.), the court granted a tortfeasor Defendant's Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and transferred venue of the case to Lancaster County.

According to the Opinion, the accident occurred in Lancaster County and the tortfeasor Defendants resided in Lancaster County.  The court otherwise noted that there was no forum selection clause in the State Farm policy and that, in any event, the tortfeasor Defendants and the UIM carrier were not joint tortfeasors for venue purposes or otherwise.

This Opinion is also interesting in its review of the law of the case doctrine given that this decision essentially overruled a prior decision of another judge on the same bench in the same case and on the same issues.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  CLE Materials from Annual Auto Law Update Seminar by Pennsylvania Association for Justice.