Rhoads & Sinon senior litigation partner Thomas A. French recently won an important victory in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In Steiner v. Markel (No. 602 MAP 2008) the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Superior Court, rejecting and distinguishing a long-standing line of Superior Court precedent beginning with the case of Cardenas v. Schober, 783 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super, 2001). Those cases had held that a trial court, when reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint, must consider the facts alleged in order to determine whether they would support any possible cause of action.

In Steiner, the trial court had entered judgment on the pleadings against the Plaintiffs, holding that their professional malpractice claim was barred by the two year statute of limitations applicable to negligence claims. The Superior Court had reversed the trial court and, following the Cardenas line of cases, held that the facts alleged in the Complaint could have supported a breach of contract claim subject to a four year limitations period, even though the Plaintiffs never argued that they had intended to assert such a claim.

Mr. French argued in the Supreme Court that this holding conflicts with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019 (a) which requires the Plaintiff to state each cause of action in a separate count of the Complaint. Thus, the Plaintiffs should have asserted a separate count for negligence and a separate count for breach of contract, if they had intended to assert both claims. Mr. French contended that it was unfair to Defendants to have to defend a negligence claim throughout the entire case, only to have the appellate court "discover" on appeal a new contract claim, never previously raised by the Plaintiff.

The Supreme Court agreed with Mr. French's arguments and held:

"The dissent, relying primarily on Cardenas and Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp., 319 A.2d 914 (Pa. 1974) argues that Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirements obligate a court to search within a complaint to divine any possible claims stated therein. Not only is Cardenas not binding on this Court, but the language in both Cardenas and Kuisis is more limited than the dissent concludes.... The holdings in Cardenas and Kuisis do not, however excuse a plaintiff from pleading a cognizable claim in the complaint...."

The Supreme Court went on to conclude:

Although the [Plaintiffs] generally argued that the Complaint was valid and contained a timely claim, [Plaintiffs] never said, argued or wrote that their Complaint contained a breach of contract claim. Instead, the [Plaintiffs] asked the appellate courts to scour the Complaint for any and all causes of action. Pennsylvania law does not support such an obligation, which would create a moving target for the courts and litigants."

The Court further held that the Plaintiffs had waived their right to assert this issue on appeal because they had not expressly asserted it in their Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, and that the Superior Court exceeded its proper scope of review by sua sponte raising this issue itself.

The case was reported in the Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2009.

Mr. French has represented clients before all levels of courts in Pennsylvania and elsewhere for over 25 years. He has been an adjunct professor of law at Widener University School of Law, where he taught trial advocacy and Pennsylvania Civil Procedure. He also served for many years on the Dickinson/Penn State University Law School Trial Advocacy faculty. For more information go to his profile, or contact him at tfrench@rhoads-sinon.com or at 717 231-6625. He was ably assisted on the Supreme Court Brief by Rhoads & Sinon Associate Cory Iannaconne