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 Rules that Forum Selection Clause in Informed Consent Form is Enforceable in Medical Malpractice Cases

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 informed consent forms.

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.

Yet, the Plaintiff brought this personal injury lawsuit in Philadelphia County.  The medical Defendant filed Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue.

The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 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.

Source of image:  Photo by Etactics Inc. on www.unsplash.com.

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).

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.

Trial Court Requests Superior Court To Reverse Trial Court's Own Venue Ruling

In the case of Martinez v. Elsner Engineering Works, Inc., No. 230102505 (C.P. Phila. Co. Feb. 15, 2024 Anders, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in which it requested the Superior Court to reverse the trial court’s previous ruling that sustained a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections as to venue and transferred the case from Philadelphia County to York County. 

The trial court noted that, in this case, the Plaintiff sued multiple Defendants in Philadelphia County for personal injuries allegedly caused by a defective industrial product/equipment.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that one (1) Defendant designed, manufactured and sold the industrial equipment in Philadelphia County and that another Defendant was a successor-in-interest to the manufacturer.

The successor-in-interest Defendant filed Preliminary Objections and asserted that Philaelphia County was an improper venue.  In its original decision, the trial court agreed and ordered that the case be transferred to York County.

With this Opinion, the trial court concluded that, upon further review of the matter, its Order should be reversed and that Philadelphia should be found to be a proper venue for the case because a transaction or occurrence took place in Philadelphia County out of which the Plaintiff’s cause of action arose. More specifically, the Plaintiff had alleged that the original equipment manufacturer had defectively designed, manufactured, and sold the disputed equipment in Philadelphia County.

The trial court noted that it had reviewed additional case law authority that offered guidance as to whether proper venue in a particular county existed based upon business activity of a predecessor corporation of a current defendant in a matter. In that regard, the court found that a predecessor corporation’s activities could be attributed to its successor for purposes of a determination of proper jurisdiction.

As such, the trial court was now concluding that Philadelphia County was a proper venue in light of the Plaintiff’s allegations that the Defendant at issue was a successor-in-interest of the original equipment manufacturer.  The trial court, therefore, requested the Superior Court it reverse the trial court's prior decision.

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


Source: Law.com, “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” (June 5, 2024).

Source of image: Photo by Nick Fewings on www.pexels.com.

Trial Court Grants Preliminary Objections Asserting Improper Venue in Philadelphia County

In the case of Smith v. Rodriguez, No. 220602304 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 14, 2023 Carpenter, J.), the court sustained Preliminary Objections raising improper venue and, as a result, transferred this Philadelphia County case to Northampton County.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion addressed to the Superior Court, the trial court requested an affirmance of its trial court Order sustaining the Preliminary Objections to improper venue.

The trial court reviewed the evidence and found that the Defendant’s conduct of coordinating shipments via the Philadelphia Airport or the Philadelphia Seaport was insufficient to meet the test of proper venue for Philadelphia County pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2179.

The court stated that there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that the Defendant did business in Philadelphia that was regular, continuous, and habitual.

The court found that venue was proper as to all Defendants in Northampton County. Given that the Plaintiff did not request another county as an alternative venue, the case was ordered to be transferred to Northampton County.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s Opinion.

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

Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” Law.com (June 12, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Nick Fewings on www.unsplash.com.