Claims of Immunity Must Be Pled as New Matter, Not Via Preliminary Objections

In the case of Cullen v. Boomer Flooring, LLC, No. 6009-Civil-2025 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 15, 2025 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas addressed various Preliminary Objections filed in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was employed by a plumbing subcontractor and was working on a construction site when he fell through holes in the floor that were covered by cardboard and suffered injuries as result.

In this case, one of the Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting that, since that Defendant was a statutory employer, it was entitled to immunity for any tort related injuries suffered by a subcontractor’s employees.

The Plaintiff in this matter filed Preliminary Objections to this Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and asserted that any defenses regarding immunity should not be considered during the Preliminary Objections stage and should instead be pled as new matter.

After reviewing Pa. R.C.P. 1030(a) which list all affirmative defenses, including “immunity from suit,” the court agreed with the Plaintiff’s argument and sustained the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Objections to the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections.

The court otherwise reviewed other Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendants relative to the Plaintiff’s claims of “carelessness and recklessness conduct.” Relying upon the Superior Court decision in the case of Monroe v. CBH2O, LP, 286 A.3d 785 (Pa. Super. 2022), the court allowed the allegations of recklessness to proceed into discovery. As such, the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendants in this regard were overruled.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 11, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro on www.pexels.com.

Trial Court Relies on Deliberative Process Privilege To Quash Subpoenas

In the case of Helring v. Scranton Police Pension Board, No. 2024-CV-771 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 11, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court entered a detailed Order granting a Defendant’s Motion to Quash subpoenas addressed to certain witnesses.

According to the Order, this matter involves a former Scranton Police Officer, whose disability pension was revoked following his federal felony conviction for knowingly stealing federal funds from the City of Scranton.

The former police officer filed this local agency appeal and, in anticipation of a hearing, served subpoenas upon members of the Police Pension Board seeking to compel their attendance at a hearing to testify regarding the standards they applied in the discretionary decision-making process that resulted in the revocation of the Plaintiff’s disability pension.

In response to the Motion to Quash, the court granted the same after confirming that the proposed subjects of inquiry identified by the Plaintiff were protected from disclosure by the “deliberative process privilege” which applies in cases involving governmental agencies.

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

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.

LACKAWANNA PRO BONO ANNUAL GALA

 

MEDIATION SUCCESS TIP FROM CUMMINS MEDIATION SERVICES

 

 TIP TO IMPROVE CHANCES 

FOR SUCCESS AT MEDIATION:

HIRE CUMMINS MEDIATION

570-319-5899

dancummins@Cumminslaw.net

Superior Court Affirmed Dismissal of Matter for Service of Process Issues

In the case of Ohio Security Ins. Co. v. Pinnacle Venue Services, LLC, No. 3125 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Kunselman, J., Stabile, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.) (Stevens, P.J.E., concurring), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Preliminary Objections asserting that the Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed due to the failure of the Plaintiff’s complete service of process in a timely fashion.

In this matter, the appellate court ruled that the Plaintiff’s Complaint was barred by the statute of limitations because the Plaintiff made no attempt to serve process for months and the statute of limitations had expired in the meantime. The court noted that the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel was distracted by events concerning the collapse of his law firm was no excuse for the failure to complete service of process.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this 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.

Court Reviews Whether Attorney Had Client's Authority to Settle For a Particular Amount

In the case of Hwang v. Camagna, No. 2023-01338-PL (C.P. Chester Co. Aug. 23, 2024 Binder, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Enforce a Settlement and for Sanctions relative to an alleged settlement of a dental malpractice case for $1,500.00.

According to the Opinion, counsel for the Plaintiff believed he had authority to settle a dental malpractice claim based upon email communications.

After the Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted to the court, for in camera review, the purported letter from the client authorizing him to enter into a settlement.

After reviewing the correspondence, the court found that, while the document implied that the Plaintiff verbally authorized counsel for the Plaintiff to settle for some amount, the document reviewed by the court did not show any expressed authority to settle for a particular amount.

Accordingly, the court ruled that it could not find that the Plaintiff had expressly authorized counsel for the Plaintiff to settle the Plaintiff’s claims for $1,500.00. The court reiterated the general rule that attorneys cannot settle a case without the express authorization from a client.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Aug. 14, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Sora Shimazaki on www.pexels.com.