Filing of Complaint in District Magistrate Satisfies Statute of Limitations

In the case of Whittington v. Daniels, No. 47 MAP 2025 (Pa. 2026) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the filing of a Complaint in a magisterial district court serves to toll the statute of limitations for all time.

This matter arose out of a contractual dispute.

There was a district magistrate hearing and the case was appealed to the Court of Common Pleas where the Plaintiff was required to file a new Complaint under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure within twenty (20) days.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs failed to file their Complaint and the case became dormant until a later Notice of Intent to Terminate was issued by the trial court. The Plaintiffs then filed a Complaint at that point.

The Defendant responded by indicating that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

After the matter later went up to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, that court found that the filing of a magisterial district justice Complaint tolls the statue of limitations only during the pendency of the magisterial district court case and that the statute again begins to run after the expiration of the twenty (20) day period to file a Complaint when the district magistrate case is appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision as erroneous.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the filing of a magisterial district justice Complaint tolls the statute of limitations for any cause of action based upon the factual allegations in that district magistrate Complaint, including during any appeal.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court additionally held that the subsequent filing of a Common Pleas Court Complaint is simply a continuation of the original action, not the commencement of a new action.

As such, the Supreme Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s cause of action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

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


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Oct. 30, 2026).

Trial Court Grants Summary Judgment Based on Borrowed Servant Doctrine

In the case of Almonte v. Roaring Creek Egg Farm, No. 2019-CV-03731 (C.P. Luz. Co. Oct. 7, 2026 Pierantoni, J.), the court granted various Motions for Summary Judgment filed by various Defendants in a construction accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, while working as a temporary construction laborer, allegedly fell approximately three (3) stories through an opening of a building that was being constructed and sustained injuries as a result.

One of the Defendants, Hershey Equipment Company, was granted summary judgment under the borrowed servant doctrine.

The Hershey Equipment Company asserted that, based upon the record before the court, the Plaintiff was its borrowed servant and, therefore, Hershey Equipment Company, was immune from the tort lawsuit under the Worker’s Compensation Act.

The court agreed and granted this Defendant summary judgment on this basis.

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


I sending thanks to Attorney Ryan McBride of the Scranton office of the Weber Gallagher law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Josh Olalde on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time to Register or Sponsor

 

SCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION BEFORE THE SPOTS RUN OUT

                       LOOKING TO BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE?

LIMITED SLOTS AVAILABLE

PLEASE CALL TODAY TO SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT

570-319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Superior Court Provides Guidance on Choosing an Administrator of an Estate

In the case of In Re: Estate of Staten, No. 1455 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2026 Bender, P.J.E., McLaughlin, J., and Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the court addressed issues regarding the qualification and selection of an administrator of the estate for a deceased person.

It is noted here that this issue could become important in the case where a plaintiff or a defendant involved in a civil litigation matter has passed away and an administrator of the estate of the deceased party has to be appointed so that the estate can be substituted as the party defendant for the deceased party.

In this case, the victim died intestate, and a dispute arose in the Orphan’s Court regarding who should be appointed the administrator of the estate of the victim. 

The options were the victim’s mother or, as preferred by the mothers of the victim’s two minor children, an estate administration attorney contacted by the plaintiff's attorney in a related personal injury litigation.

The Orphan’s Court appointed the estate administration attorney. The victim’s mother appealed.

On appeal, the Superior Court provided an overview of Pennsylvania law regarding the qualification and selection of estate administrators.

Under 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3155(b) there is listed the different types of persons who could be appointed as an administrator of an estate. Within that statute is a category for “other fit persons” who could be appointed as an administrator to an estate.

In this matter, the victim’s mother asserted that her family relationship with the victim should give her priority of appointment over the estate administration attorney.

In reviewing the law, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the statute does not give preference or priority over certain persons, such as those who are family and/or have a blood relationship with the decedent, within the “other fit persons” category of individuals eligible to be granted Letter of Administration under the statute.

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.j

Source of image:  Photo by Jon Tyson on www.unsplash.com.

Still Time To Register For Next Thursday's Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference

 

On November 5, 2026, Daniel E. Cummins, Esq. of Cummins Law and Neil T. O'Donnell of O'Donnell Law will be presenting a CLE program entitled "2026 Civil Litigation Update With Practice Tips" at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference set to take place at the Hilton Scranton Hotel and Conference Center.

Attendance at the Lackawanna County Bench Bar Conference is open to members of the Lackawanna Bar Association Conference and will be held in person.

Please consider registering to attend the upcoming November 5, 2026 Lackawanna County by utilizing this LINK.

Please also note that a version of this presentation may also be offered on Zoom through another sponsor in the near future. Details to follow.

Are Settlement Proceeds From a Survival Action Income For Purposes of Determining Child Support Obligations?

In the case of Birkmire v. Zeppieri, No. 802 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Oct. 1, 2026 Bender, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of survival action settlement proceeds and child support obligations.

According to the Opinion, a mother’s child was tragically killed while walking to a school bus stop.

The mother filed a wrongful death and survival action. The case was eventually settled.

The Plaintiff put 100% of the amount of the settlement as survival damages to the child’s estate.

A family court later determined that the settlement proceeds were income to the mother for purposes of determining the mother’s child support obligation for another child.

In this decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Pennsylvania Superior Court panel concluded that the settlement proceeds were not income for purposes of determining the mother’s child support obligations.

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog written by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by Sasun Bughdarya on www.unsplash.com