Out With the Old, In With the New:
A Civil Litigation Year-End Review
By
Daniel E. Cummins
Over the past year, there was a steady flow of notable decisions handed down by the various state and federal courts across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as another year of civil litigation jurisprudence goes down in the books. Those decisions are reviewed below.
Overall, some old rules have been ousted as no longer viable, and some new rules have been enunciated to guide civil litigation practice going forward.
Readers may secure more details on the decisions summarized below, as well as a copy of the actual court decisions referenced, by going to the Tort Talk Blog and typing the name of the plaintiff into the search box in the upper right-hand corner of the blog.
By
Daniel E. Cummins
Over the past year, there was a steady flow of notable decisions handed down by the various state and federal courts across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as another year of civil litigation jurisprudence goes down in the books. Those decisions are reviewed below.
Overall, some old rules have been ousted as no longer viable, and some new rules have been enunciated to guide civil litigation practice going forward.
Readers may secure more details on the decisions summarized below, as well as a copy of the actual court decisions referenced, by going to the Tort Talk Blog and typing the name of the plaintiff into the search box in the upper right-hand corner of the blog.
Good Cause for IME
In a decision that was handed down near the end of the previous year in the case of Verba v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 326 A.3d 973 (Pa. Super. 2024 ), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the standard for determining whether good cause exists to compel the Plaintiff to cooperate with a request for a medical examination under Pa.R.C.P. 4010.
The court noted that the requirement of good cause set forth in Rule 4010 is designed to protect parties against an unwarranted invasion of their privacy and to preclude the use of such a medical examination for improper purposes. Simply put, the court in Verba held that good cause can exist in a pending litigation if there is a controversy, or a dispute between the parties, regarding the validity of the plaintiff’s injury claims.
Allegations of Recklessness
The year 2025 began as 2024 ended—with state trial court judges looking past the fact that Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state and allowing plaintiffs to plead recklessness and punitive damages claims in complaints with reckless abandon in all personal injury matters regardless of the facts involved. This trend continued throughout this year with trial court judges relying upon the errant Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in the case of Monroe v. CB H20, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022) (en banc).
While the state trial court judges from all around the commonwealth continued to routinely allow claims of recklessness in every case, at least one federal district court judge said not so fast. In McKinney v. GM, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025), Judge Susan Paradise Baxter of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a partial motion to dismiss claims of punitive damages after finding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.
The court noted that allegations of recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. In McKinney, the court found that the products liability complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the defendant allegedly became aware of it, or what actions the defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.
Baxter, applying Pennsylvania law, emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake or errors in judgment. The court found that the complaint in the McKinney case failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.
While the state trial court judges from all around the commonwealth continued to routinely allow claims of recklessness in every case, at least one federal district court judge said not so fast. In McKinney v. GM, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025), Judge Susan Paradise Baxter of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a partial motion to dismiss claims of punitive damages after finding that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.
The court noted that allegations of recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. In McKinney, the court found that the products liability complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the defendant allegedly became aware of it, or what actions the defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.
Baxter, applying Pennsylvania law, emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake or errors in judgment. The court found that the complaint in the McKinney case failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.
Attorney Discipline
The first notable decision handed down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over this past year was handed down in February. In the case of Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney, [docket no. withheld by court] (Pa. Feb. 12, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the standard of proof for a disciplinary hearing involving allegations of attorney misconduct. The court opted for a higher burden.
According to the opinion, prior to this ruling, the previously accepted standard of proof for disciplinary cases against attorneys was “a preponderance of the evidence through clear and satisfactory evidence.” In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the burden of proof of disciplinary cases going forward should be “clear and convincing evidence.”
In ruling in this fashion, the court noted that “attorney disciplinary proceedings are not civil disputes for money damages, and the public’s and the attorney’s interests are not clearly minimal.” The court otherwise noted that “disciplinary proceedings are not strictly civil nor criminal in nature, but rather have been styled as ‘quasi criminal.’” For these reasons, the court chose to go with a higher burden of proof.
New Jury Selection Rule Goes Into Effect
In April, the new Pa.R.C.P 220.3 went into effect on April 1 requiring trial court judges to be present in the courtroom for jury selections in civil cases unless the litigants opt out of the requirement. This rule was set to take effect on April 1, 2025, and can be found under Pa. R.C.P. 220.3.
Avenues of Recovery in Worker’s Compensation Cases Expanded
In May of this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent with its decision in the case of Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, (Workers' Compensation Appeals Board), 335 A.3d 1076 (Pa. May 30, 2025), in order to allow a new line of worker’s compensation claims to go forward.
In this decision, the Supreme Court created new law and cleared the way for the estates of those individuals who died as a result of work-related injuries to collect benefits related to claims for disfigurement and injury. The court overturned long-standing case law regarding whether specific loss benefits are payable after an employee’s death from causes related to the work injury.
Archaic Local Rule Overruled
In another decision of note from May of this year, the Superior Court struck down a trial court’s local rule.
In the case of Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort, No. 1478 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2025), the archaic local rule at issue from the Pike County Common Pleas Court required original signatures on all filings with the court, which did not allow for electronic signatures.
In Scheibe, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the trial court had improperly refused to docket paperwork relative to the initial filing of the lawsuit. The prothonotary had rejected the filing because the documents contained only an electronic signature in violation of the local rules that required original signatures.
The appellate court first confirmed that there was no requirement in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure for any filing to be hand-signed by a party or their attorney. Rather, the statewide Rules of Civil Procedure contemplated that a “signature” could include a computer-generated signature.
The Superior Court additionally held that, under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, documents mailed to the prothonotary’s office were deemed to be filed when received by that office as a litigant would have no control over when that office would stamp and process the filing. The Superior Court also confirmed that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure expressly prohibited the rejection of a filing that complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure where that filing did not meet the requirements of a local rule.
For all of these reasons, the Superior Court agreed that the complaint was timely filed. In the process, the appellate court struck down the archaic local rule of court.
New Cellphone Law
While texting while driving has been banned in Pennsylvania since 2012, in June of this year, a new law went into effect that banned any and all cellphone use while driving on the roads of Pennsylvania. Under certain exceptions noted in the law, a driver may use a cellphone for emergency purposes. A driver may also use a mobile device if they pull off to the side of the road and stop where a vehicle may safely remain in a stopped position.
The law, known as “Paul Miller’s Law,” went into effect on June 5, 2025, and made it illegal to use a cellphone in your hands in any way while driving. The law even prohibits these activities even when one is stopped at a red light or in a traffic jam. Under the language of the law, it appears that an overhead bluetooth system can be used to make calls as long as one uses the buttons on the steering wheel and the dash and not by way of pushing buttons on the cellphone.
For the next year through June 2026, the penalty for a violation will be a written warning. Starting June 5, 2026, the penalty will be a summary offense with a $50 fine, plus court costs and other fees. Moreover, if a driver is convicted of both vehicular homicide and driving while distracted, they may be sentenced up to an additional five years in prison.
Gist of the Action Doctrine
In July, the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the viability of the gist of the action doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligence claim cannot be recast in a complaint as a breach of contract claim and vice versa.
In the case of Swatt v. Nottingham Village, 2025 Pa. Super. 138 (Pa. Super. July 2, 2025) (en banc) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), an en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of whether the gist of the action doctrine should continue to be applied to contract actions as it has been for the past 26 years.
This case arose out of a nursing home malpractice claim. The plaintiff filed claims for both malpractice and breach of contract.
Despite a number of prior cases confirming that the gist of the action doctrine does apply as a defense where a breach of contract claim is added to a negligence claim, this en banc panel of the Superior Court concluded, after completing an exhaustive review of the case law allowing for alternative pleadings, that the gist of the action doctrine should no longer apply to prevent the pleading of an alternative breach of contact claim in a negligence action. Rather, the court noted that, under any set of facts, plaintiff could make claims for both negligence and breach of contact in the alternative wherever warranted.
This ruling eradicating this defense could prove important in those cases where a plaintiff’s negligence claim is potentially barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, but where the plaintiff attempts to keep the lawsuit alive by pleading, in the alternative, a breach of contract claim which has a four-year statute of limitations claim.
Another Archaic Local Rule Overruled
In August, the Superior Court struck down another archaic local rule in its decision in the case of Biros v. U Lock, No. 113 WDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 1, 2025).
In Biros, the Superior Court vacated a trial court order out of the Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court of in which the trial court had denied, with prejudice, an appellant’s motion to file her Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, nunc pro tunc.
The Superior Court noted that, Pa. R.C.P. 205.4(e)(2) bars any refusal by a trial court of an otherwise compliant pleading for filing based upon a requirement of a local rule pertaining to the electronic filing of legal papers. The appellate court found that Westmoreland County’s archaic requirement that notices of appeal could only be filed in person or by mail was such a local rule. Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the appellant’s initial filing was properly and timely filed and was sufficient to initiate the appeal.
Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Clarified
In September of this year, 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 in the case of Tranter v. Z & D Tour, No. 32 EAP 2024 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Wecht, J.).
This matter arose out of a multi-vehicle collision that occurred in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania involving a passenger bus and commercial vehicles. The crash resulted in five deaths and numerous injuries. The 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 Supreme Court held that the Superior Court’s imposition of a “key witness” requirement in the analysis was inconsistent with Pennsylvania precedent on the issue of the type of evidence required to secure a transfer of a matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The Supreme Court otherwise 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.
Arbitration Clauses and Children
On the same day in September that it issued its decision in the Tranter case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a parent who signs an arbitration agreement cannot bind a nonsigning spouse or a minor child to the terms of that agreement.
The case of Shultz v. Skyzone, No. 25 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.), involved the claims brought on behalf of several minors who were injured at trampoline parks operated by Skyzone in Philadelphia. In each instance, only one parent had signed a “participation agreement, release, and assumption of the risk” on behalf of their child. That agreement contained an arbitration provision waiving the right to sue in court.
After the lawsuits for personal injuries were filed, the defendant filed petitions to compel arbitration, relying upon the signed agreements. The issue was litigated all the way up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that parents lacked the authority to bind a minor to an agreement to arbitrate, as this would deprive the minor of judicial protections and oversight designed to safeguard their interests. As noted above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also held that a parent who signs an arbitration agreement cannot bind a nonsigning parent, or minor child, to its terms.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the same decision on the same date in the consolidated case of Santiago v. Philly Trampoline Park, No. 24 EAP 2023 (Pa. Sept. 25, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.).
Statutory Employer Doctrine Upheld
In October, in the case of Yoder v. McCarty Construction, 43 MAP (Pa. Oct. 23, 2025), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the statutory employer doctrine under the Worker’s Compensation Act and rejected arguments from the plaintiff seeking to abolish this doctrine.
According to the opinion, the plaintiff suffered a workplace injury. The plaintiff was an employee of a subcontractor. The general contractor asserted the defense of statutory employer immunity in the personal injury action arising out of the accident.
The Supreme Court began its decision by reaffirming the law behind the statutory employer doctrine that has been in effect in Pennsylvania since 1930 as enunciated in the case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel, 153 A. 424, 426 (Pa. 1930).
That long-standing law provides that, under Section 203 of the Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), 77 P.S. Section 462, a general contractor that hires a subcontractor to perform work on a jobsite is deemed to be an “employer” of employees of the subcontractor in certain circumstances. In those instances where the subcontractor does not make payment, the general contractor will be considered liable for the worker’s compensation payments. In exchange for this imposition of secondary liability on the general contractor, the act’s statutory employer provision in Section 203 of the act, 77 P.S. Section 52, extends to a general contractor the same tort immunity afforded to the subcontractor of the injured worker in any third-party lawsuit arising out of the same accident.
As noted, at the Supreme Court level in this Yoder case, the court rejected arguments by the plaintiff that the statutory employer doctrine should be rejected or that such immunity should be deemed to be waivable in certain circumstances.
Artificial Intelligence
In the year 2025, courts and litigators found a steady rise in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in many aspects of the law. AI platforms have begun to be used to assist in the evaluation of cases and also with respect to legal research and brief writing.
Near the end of this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an interim policy to guide judges and court personnel who desired to use AI in their day-to-day work.
This policy allows for judges and court personnel to utilize AI for summarizing documents, conducting preliminary legal research, and drafting initial versions of documents. These rules, which are compiled under a document entitled the “Interim Policy On The Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence By Judicial Officers And Court Personnel" was set to go into effect on Dec. 8, 2025.
It is anticipated that, in the near future, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may also come out with rules to guide attorneys on the proper use of AI in the practice of law relative to any filings with the courts.
In the Pennsylvania federal courts, Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has been leading the way by crafting a civil practice order that is issued in all of her matters that requires attorneys to identify any AI-created portions of their court filings and to certify to the court that any citations contained therein have been checked for accuracy.
As noted in the Aug. 14, 2025, the Pennsylvania Law Weekly article titled “AI and Its Proper Use in the Practice of Law,” by Daniel E. Cummins and Michael Cummins, a number of lawyers in Pennsylvania and across the country have been sanctioned for submitting fake legal citations, known as hallucinations, as a result of utilizing AI platforms for legal research and the writing of briefs and not checking the accuracy of such citations. Such issues have caused a need for the above rules as well as a rise in continuing legal education courses designed to educate attorneys to be careful in utilizing these emerging technologies.
New Book
Last but not least, it is noted that, over the past year, the Pennsylvania Bar Institute (PBI) published an e-book titled Raising the Bar: A Practical Guide to the Practice of Law, written by Daniel E. Cummins. The book compiles articles written by me over the past 25 years providing practice and professionalism tips for lawyers and judges, many of which articles were originally published right here in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. The book is designed to provide lawyers, whether they be new or experienced, with tips and reminders on how to improve their day-to-day practice of law and efforts at a work-life balance.
Daniel E. Cummins is the managing partner at Cummins Law in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. Contact him at dancummins@cumminslaw.net.
Reprinted with permission from the December 11, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.
