Dibble, L. v. Page Transportation
565 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Accident on Sept. 10, 2018 on I-90 in Clarence, New York: AMS Trucking driver Matthew Swope (sole owner/employee) allegedly struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle while hauling a load for Page Transportation.
- Plaintiffs (New York residents) sued Page Transportation, Page E.T.C., Inc. (New York corporations with a Harrisburg, PA registered office) and AMS Trucking (PA LLC) in Philadelphia County in Sept. 2020.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections arguing venue in Philadelphia County was improper under Pa.R.C.P. 2179; evidence showed Page had 86 loads connected to Philadelphia from 2016–2020 out of 512,384 total (.0167%).
- Trial court found neither Page nor AMS regularly conducted business in Philadelphia (no offices, employees, equipment there; minimal, incidental deliveries) and transferred the case to Dauphin County.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing (1) Page’s admitted contacts supported venue in Philadelphia and (2) discovery was incomplete; appellate court found the discovery complaint waived by Rule 1925(b) and affirmed the transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in Philadelphia was proper under Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a)(2) ("regularly conducts business") | Page’s admitted contacts (deliveries/billing to Philadelphia; ten Philly customers over 5 years) suffice to establish "regular" business | Page: negligible contacts (.0167% of loads), no offices/employees/equipment in Philadelphia; AMS: never did business there | Court: applied abuse-of-discretion standard; quantity and quality of contacts insufficient; venue improper and transfer to Dauphin affirmed |
| Whether plaintiffs may rely on defendants’ alleged discovery failures to defeat venue objection | Plaintiffs: defendants failed to produce TMS reports, bills of lading, E-ZPass logs, etc., so record was incomplete on venue | Defendants: discovery argument not properly preserved in concise statement | Court: discovery-based argument waived under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); appellate review limited to preserved claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hangey v. Husqvarna Prof'l Prods., Inc., 247 A.3d 1136 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quantity/quality test for "regularly conducts business"; percentage alone not dispositive)
- Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co., 208 A.2d 252 (Pa. 1965) (appellate courts should not overturn trial court’s venue finding if reasonable in view of the facts)
- Trexler v. McDonald's Corp., 118 A.3d 408 (Pa. Super. 2015) (general standard for reviewing preliminary objections)
- Grabowski v. Carelink Cmty. Support Servs., Inc., 230 A.3d 465 (Pa. Super. 2020) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) concise statement are waived)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 250 A.3d 1209 (Pa. 2021) (concise statement must give trial judge sufficient notice of claimed errors)