Donaldson, K. v. Davidson Brothers, Inc.
144 A.3d 93
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Three‑vehicle fatal collision on June 16, 2008: Davidson Brothers truck rear‑ended Sarah Donaldson, forcing her into eastbound traffic where she collided with an LJF, Inc. tractor‑trailer driven by Wilbert Quade; Donaldson died.
- Kevin Donaldson (administrator) sued Davidson Brothers, Donley, LJF and Quade; LJF asserted counterclaims including a "loss of contract" claim against the Donaldson and Davidson interests.
- On October 9, 2009 LJF executed a partial property‑damage release settling property claims with Davidson Brothers (expressly preserving any "loss of contract" claim).
- Trial court sustained Donaldson’s preliminary objections and dismissed LJF’s counterclaim (June 1, 2010); later granted Davidson interests’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (July 24, 2015). LJF appealed.
- On appeal the Superior Court rejected the trial court’s reliance on the Economic Loss Doctrine as applied, but affirmed the dismissals on independent grounds: LJF failed to plead its loss‑of‑contract claim with the particularity required by Pennsylvania pleading rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Economic Loss Doctrine (ELD) bars LJF’s loss‑of‑contract claim | LJF: ELD does not apply because property damage occurred (and the release reserved loss‑of‑contract claims) | Appellees/TRIAL CT: ELD bars recovery for purely economic loss; property claims were settled and thus indeterminable | Court: ELD did not bar the claim here — trial court misapplied ELD and public‑policy rationale because property damage was pleaded and the doctrine’s prerequisites were not met |
| Effect of LJF’s partial property‑damage release (with express reservation of loss‑of‑contract) | LJF: release preserved its loss‑of‑contract claim | Appellees: release (and admissions) undermine or preclude the claim; ELD defense | Court: release did not automatically eliminate property‑damage predicate; trial court erred to treat release as negating property damage for ELD purposes |
| Whether LJF’s loss‑of‑contract counterclaim was sufficiently pleaded under Pa. pleading rules | LJF: counterclaim sufficed (generic allegation of loss of contract) | Appellees: pleading is conclusory and lacks material facts required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019/1020 | Court: Held that the loss‑of‑contract allegation was vague and conclusory; it failed to plead existence/terms of any contract, breach, and resultant damages — dismissal warranted |
| Application of law‑of‑the‑case / collateral‑estoppel arguments to bar LJF’s claims | LJF: law‑of‑the‑case should not preclude relitigation | Appellees: prior decisions and related proceedings preclude LJF’s relitigation | Court: Did not rest decision on law‑of‑the‑case; resolved appeal on pleading insufficiency and ELD analysis (affirmed orders on independent grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania, 985 A.2d 840 (Pa. 2009) (discusses scope and limits of the Economic Loss Doctrine)
- Aikens v. Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co., 501 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. 1985) (economic‑loss rule bars recovery for loss of expected profits absent physical injury or property damage)
- Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1927) (root case limiting tort recovery for economic loss arising from injury to a third party’s property interest)
- Margolis v. Jackson, 543 A.2d 1238 (Pa. Super. 1988) (denial of recovery for pure economic loss as indirect result of another’s negligence)
- Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755 (Pa. 1994) (public policy must be grounded in clear legal precedent before courts invalidate contracts on that basis)
- McShea v. City of Philadelphia, 995 A.2d 334 (Pa. 2010) (describing Pennsylvania’s fact‑pleading requirements and the necessity of alleging contract existence, essential terms, breach, and damages)