Attorneys
Practice Areas
Supreme Court Victory
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 final judgment was entered in favor of the Firm’s client.