Justia Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An employee of a roofing subcontractor was severely injured after falling through an uncovered hole while working on a library roof replacement project. The general contractor had contracted with the property owner to perform the roof work and then subcontracted the roofing portion to the injured worker’s employer. The injured worker received workers’ compensation benefits from his direct employer and subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against the general contractor, seeking damages for his injuries.In the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, the general contractor asserted statutory employer immunity under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing it was immune from tort liability as a statutory employer. The trial court struck the general contractor’s answer and new matter as untimely and granted the injured worker’s motion to preclude the statutory employer defense at trial. The case proceeded to a jury, which found the general contractor negligent and awarded $5 million to the plaintiff. The trial court denied the general contractor’s post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the general contractor. The Superior Court held that the general contractor was the injured worker’s statutory employer and thus immune from tort liability, finding all elements of the statutory employer test satisfied and that the defense was not waivable.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether to overrule prior precedent (Fonner and LeFlar) regarding statutory employer immunity and waiver, and whether the Superior Court properly applied the statutory employer test. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior holdings that a general contractor’s statutory employer immunity does not depend on actual payment of workers’ compensation benefits and that the defense is jurisdictional and not waivable. However, it found the Superior Court erred by exceeding its scope of review and remanded the case to the trial court to determine, after appropriate proceedings, whether the general contractor satisfied the disputed elements of the statutory employer test. View "Yoder v. McCarthy Const." on Justia Law

A homebuyer entered into an agreement to purchase a property in Titusville, Pennsylvania, and, before completing the purchase, orally contracted with a home inspector to perform an inspection. The inspector delivered a report that did not disclose any structural or foundational issues. Relying on this report, the buyer purchased the property. The following winter, a burst pipe led to the discovery of significant defects, including the absence of a proper foundation and improper ductwork, which had not been disclosed in the inspection report. The buyer filed suit against the inspector more than two years after the report was delivered, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Home Inspection Law, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.The Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County overruled most of the inspector’s preliminary objections and denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding ambiguity in the statute governing the time to bring actions arising from home inspection reports. The trial court reasoned that the statute could be interpreted as either a statute of limitations or a statute of repose and declined to grant judgment for the inspector. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, holding that the statute in question was a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations, and that all of the buyer’s claims were time-barred because they were filed more than one year after the inspection report was delivered.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the relevant statutory provision, 68 Pa.C.S. § 7512, is a statute of repose or a statute of limitations. The Court held that the statute is a statute of repose, barring any action to recover damages arising from a home inspection report if not commenced within one year of the report’s delivery, regardless of when the claim accrues. The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. View "Gidor v. Mangus" on Justia Law

The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh leased a unit in the Northview Heights Complex to Darlene Nash. On January 9, 2021, Nash hosted a birthday party at her unit, which was attended by numerous people, including a juvenile known as “Shooter.” During the party, after Nash asked another guest, Blake Green, to leave, Green was shot and killed inside Nash’s unit. Shooter was identified as the main suspect, though no charges or arrests were made. The Housing Authority served Nash with a notice to terminate her lease, citing the shooting as a violation of lease provisions prohibiting criminal activity and the discharge of deadly weapons by any “Covered Person,” which includes guests and other persons under the tenant’s control.The Magisterial District Court granted the Housing Authority possession of the unit, permitting eviction. Nash appealed to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, where a non-jury trial was held. The trial court found that Shooter was not an unauthorized occupant or a guest, but was an “Other Person Under the Tenant’s Control” (OPTC) due to Nash’s “open house” invitation. The court concluded Nash violated the lease and awarded possession to the Housing Authority. Nash’s post-trial motion was denied, and she appealed to the Commonwealth Court.The Commonwealth Court reversed, reasoning that an invitation to the unit was not the same as an invitation to the premises, and the Housing Authority had not established that Shooter was on the premises due to Nash’s invitation. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the lease and relevant law de novo, holding that an invitation to a unit is an invitation to the premises, and Shooter was an OPTC at the time of the shooting. The Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court’s decision, holding that the Housing Authority may evict Nash for the criminal act committed by Shooter in her unit. View "Housing Authority v. Nash" on Justia Law

A mother and her son owned real property together in Pennsylvania as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, meaning that if one died, the other would automatically inherit the entire property. After their relationship deteriorated, the mother sought to sever this joint tenancy so that her share would not pass automatically to her son upon her death. She executed a quitclaim deed transferring her interest in the property from herself as grantor to herself as grantee, explicitly stating her intent to sever the joint tenancy and create a tenancy in common. The mother died while litigation over the property was ongoing, and her estate, represented by her executrix, continued the dispute.The Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County determined that the mother’s quitclaim deed did not sever the joint tenancy because it did not destroy any of the four unities (title, time, interest, or possession) that define a joint tenancy. The court held that, since the joint tenancy was not severed, the property passed entirely to the son upon the mother’s death by right of survivorship. The court quieted title in favor of the son. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed this decision, reasoning that a joint tenant’s act must be of such manifestation that the actor cannot retreat from severance, and that a self-conveyance does not meet this standard.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case to determine whether a quitclaim deed transferring a joint tenant’s interest to herself is sufficient to sever a joint tenancy. The court held that such a self-conveyance is insufficient to sever a joint tenancy because it does not destroy any of the four unities. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment, holding that the joint tenancy remained intact and the property passed to the son by survivorship. View "Grant v. Grant" on Justia Law

In 1908, the Bradford County Commissioners sold an unseated tract of land, known as the Haines Warrant, to Calvin H. McCauley, Jr. at a tax sale. Over a century later, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, a successor in interest to McCauley, initiated litigation to determine ownership of various tracts of land in central Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court whether the 1908 tax sale constituted a title wash, thereby divesting the owners of the Haines Warrant’s subsurface estate of their interest.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that McCauley was acting as an agent for Central Pennsylvania Lumber Company (CPLC) when he purchased the Haines Warrant at the tax sale. The District Court determined that CPLC had a duty to pay the delinquent 1907 taxes, which led to the 1908 tax sale, and thus was barred under the Powell Rule from purchasing more than its prior interest in the Haines Warrant’s surface estate. The court concluded that McCauley’s purchase acted only as a redemption of CPLC’s prior surface interest, leaving the Proctor heirs’ interest in the subsurface estate intact.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the 1908 tax sale did not constitute a title wash. The Court determined that owners of unseated land had a duty to pay taxes levied on their property, and McCauley’s purchase, as an agent of CPLC, operated merely as a payment of the taxes owed, not as a title wash. Therefore, the purchase did not divest the Proctor heirs of their interest in the Haines Warrant’s subsurface estate. The Court answered the certified question in the negative, affirming that the Proctor heirs retained their subsurface rights. View "Commonwealth v. Proctor" on Justia Law

Gianni and Jennifer Pignetti owned two noncontiguous parcels of land in Philadelphia, used for storing vehicles and equipment for Mr. Pignetti's electrical business. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) condemned part of one parcel and all of the other for an Interstate 95 improvement project. The Pignettis sought just compensation, arguing the parcels should be valued together as one under the Eminent Domain Code, which allows for such valuation if noncontiguous tracts in substantially identical ownership are used together for a unified purpose.The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County agreed with the Pignettis, finding that the parcels were used together for a unified purpose and had substantially identical ownership. PennDOT appealed, and the Commonwealth Court reversed, ruling that the Pignettis did not prove the parcels were used together for a unified purpose. The Commonwealth Court applied a stricter standard from the case Morris v. Commonwealth, requiring that the parcels be so inseparably connected that the loss of one would necessarily and permanently injure the other.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of Section 705 of the Eminent Domain Code does not require the stricter standard from Morris. Instead, it requires only that the parcels be used together for a unified purpose. The Court found that the Pignettis' use of the parcels for storing business equipment and vehicles met this requirement. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address whether the parcels had substantially identical ownership, an issue not resolved by the Commonwealth Court. View "Pignetti v. PennDOT" on Justia Law

Nicole Simone, a resident in a multi-tenant building, fell and was injured on January 16, 2018, after slipping on ice on a walkway in a common area. She filed a premises liability action against Mohammed Zakiul Alam on December 2, 2019, alleging that he owned, possessed, maintained, and controlled the premises, and was responsible for the common areas. Simone claimed that the ice accumulation was due to damaged or misrouted rain gutters and spouts, and sought damages exceeding $50,000.The Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas dismissed Simone’s complaint on October 7, 2022, for failure to join an indispensable party, specifically Alam’s brother, Mohammed Zafiul Alam, who was a co-owner of the property. The trial court held that all co-owners must be joined in a premises liability action. Simone’s motion to vacate and reconsider was denied, and she appealed to the Superior Court. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, relying on precedent that all tenants in common must be joined in such actions.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and concluded that a tenant in common who did not exercise possession or control over the property is not an indispensable party in a premises liability action. The court found that liability in such cases is based on possession and control, not mere ownership. Since Alam alone managed and controlled the property, his brother was not an indispensable party. The court reversed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Simone v. Zakiul Alam" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellants, Dr. Simon and Toby Galapo, placed signs with anti-hate and anti-racist messages on their property after a neighbor, Denise Oberholzer, called Dr. Galapo an anti-Semitic slur. The signs were visible from the Oberholzers' property and other neighbors' homes. The Oberholzers filed a civil complaint seeking to enjoin the signs, claiming they constituted a private nuisance, intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas granted a permanent injunction, ordering the Galapos to reposition the signs so they did not face the Oberholzers' property. The court found the signs severely impacted the Oberholzers' well-being and quiet enjoyment of their home. The court also determined the injunction was a permissible time, place, and manner restriction on speech.The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the injunction, holding that the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard. The Superior Court concluded the injunction was content-neutral but remanded the case for the trial court to apply the more rigorous standard from Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., which requires that the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that the injunction constituted an impermissible prior restraint under Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court emphasized that the signs were pure speech on matters of public concern and that the trial court lacked the power to enjoin such speech. The Court also held that the publication of language giving rise to tort claims other than defamation cannot be enjoined under Article I, Section 7. The Court concluded that the signs did not invade the Oberholzers' substantial privacy interests in an essentially intolerable manner. View "Oberholzer v. Galapo" on Justia Law

Gary and Mary Wolfe own property in Muhlenberg Township, which includes a roofing business and several rental homes. Reading Blue Mountain and Northern Railroad Company (RBMN) sought to condemn a portion of the Wolfes' property to reestablish a rail siding to serve Russell Standard, an asphalt company. The Wolfes objected, arguing the taking was for a private benefit rather than a public purpose.The Berks County Court of Common Pleas sustained the Wolfes' objections, finding the condemnation was intended solely to benefit Russell Standard and not the public. The court noted that the rail siding would disrupt the Wolfes' property and existing businesses, and that Russell Standard could use its own property for the rail connection. RBMN's refusal to consider alternative routes further indicated a private benefit.The Commonwealth Court reversed, relying on older case law that generally supported railroad takings for public use. The panel presumed RBMN's taking was for a public purpose, emphasizing the historical importance of railroads in serving public needs.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court's decision. The Court held that the taking did not serve a public purpose as required by the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the public must be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking, which was not demonstrated in this case. The evidence showed the taking primarily benefited Russell Standard, with no significant public advantage. The Court remanded the case for reinstatement of the trial court's order dismissing the condemnation action. View "Wolfe v. Reading Blue Mountain" on Justia Law

AUUE, Inc. applied for a zoning permit to develop a medical center, including a hospital, medical clinic, and professional offices, on five parcels of land in Jefferson Hills Borough. The Borough's Zoning Officer issued a use permit, recognizing that the proposed use was allowed by right in the Office Park District (O-P District), but conditioned the permit on AUUE obtaining further approvals before any development could commence. Residents of Jefferson Hills appealed, arguing that the application violated several provisions of the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance.The Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) overturned the Zoning Officer’s decision, concluding that the proposed medical center was not permitted by right in the O-P District and that the Zoning Officer exceeded his authority by issuing a permit without ensuring full compliance with the Ordinance. The ZHB identified several violations in the application, including improper use of accessory parking lots and lack of direct access to a collector or arterial road.The Commonwealth Court reversed the ZHB’s decision, holding that the Zoning Officer had the authority to issue a use permit recognizing the proposed use as allowed by right in the O-P District. The court found that the ZHB should have limited its review to whether the proposed use was permitted by right, rather than considering overall compliance with the Ordinance.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision. It held that the Zoning Officer had the authority to issue a use permit for the limited purpose of recognizing that the proposed use was allowed by right in the O-P District. The ZHB was required to limit its review to this issue and was not permitted to overturn the Zoning Officer’s decision based on other potential violations of the Ordinance. View "AUUE, Inc. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills" on Justia Law