Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reviews, in Part, Ability of a Party To Proceed on A Cause of Action Based on Spoliation of Evidence

In the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. United Services Auto, No. 19 WAP 2024 (Pa. Jan. 21, 2026) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether one carrier had a claim against another carrier under and allegation of promissory estoppel due to the failure to preserve evidence pertinent to the damages claims presented in a property damage subrogation claim.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a fire that occurred at an auto repair shop, resulting in damages to the property and several vehicles. 

The insurance company for the property paid out damages and then sought reimbursement from those parties allegedly responsible. The insurer who brought the lawsuit suspected that a specific vehicle, insured by another insurance company, was the source of the fire.  As such, the Plaintiff insurance company requested that the vehicle in question be preserved for further investigation. 

Despite assurances that the vehicle would be preserved, the vehicle was instead sold at a salvage auction, thereby eliminating the possibility of further examination of the vehicle and hindering the Plaintiff’s potential claims against the other parties.  The Plaintiff insurance company filed suit based, in part, on the other insurance company's failure to preserve evidence as requested.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that the promissory estoppel claim was, in substance, a claim for negligence spoliation of evidence, which was a cause of action not recognized in Pennsylvania.

The trial court also noted that subrogation principles did not allow recovery because the Defendant had not caused the original property loss.

On appeal, the Superior Court, sitting en banc, reversed and found that the facts might support a promissory estoppel claim. The Superior Court also felt that the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint on grounds of speculative damages and unrecognized causes of action.

Further up the appellate ladder, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that, as subrogee, the Plaintiff insurance company’s rights were limited to recovery from the party responsible for the original loss and, because that Defendant did not cause the fire, no right of recovery existed. As such, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s erroneous decision, and reinstated the trial court’s Order in favor of the Defendant.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority's decision may click this LINK.

Justice Brobson's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Justice Dougherty's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries, www.justia.com (Jan. 22, 2026).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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