E.C. Leckey v. F. Livingston, D. Ahner and American States Ins. Co.
E.C. Leckey v. F. Livingston, D. Ahner and American States Ins. Co. - 833 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- On Sept. 25, 2014, Leckey struck a vehicle allegedly parked in a “no parking” zone; he sued the vehicle’s insurer (American States), its employee (Ahner), and responding officer Fred Livingston.
- Leckey alleged abuse of process by Ahner/American States (they pursued a claim that could raise his insurance risk) and willful misconduct/conspiracy by Officer Livingston for omitting insurance and parking-location details from the police report and failing to cite the parked vehicle.
- Ahner and American States filed preliminary objections (demurrers); the trial court sustained them and dismissed Leckey’s claims against those parties.
- Officer Livingston filed preliminary objections asserting governmental immunity; after oral argument the trial court sustained them and dismissed the remaining claims.
- Leckey sought leave to file an amended complaint during oral argument but never properly filed or served the motion according to local rules; he appealed only the denial of leave to amend.
- The Commonwealth Court treated the trial court’s dismissals as including denial of leave to amend, reviewed that denial for abuse of discretion, and affirmed because amendment would have been futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend | Leckey contends he attempted to present a Motion to Amend and the court improperly denied leave | Defendants contend the motion was not properly filed/served and, substantively, the proposed amendments are legally deficient | Denial affirmed: motion was not timely/filed per local rules and amendment would have been futile |
| Validity of abuse-of-process claim against insurer/agent | Leckey alleges insurer/agent pursued arbitration/claim in bad faith causing insurance consequences | Defendants argue no improper use of legal process; at most they pursued a legitimate claim to recover property damage | Abuse-of-process claim fails: plaintiff did not plead use of process for an illegitimate purpose beyond pursuing recovery |
| Whether officer’s omissions in report constitute willful misconduct (overcome immunity) | Leckey alleges failure to record illegal parking and insurer info was intentional willful misconduct causing his damages | Livingston argues governmental immunity bars suit; omissions do not rise to willful misconduct and no duty to cite parking violations | Willful-misconduct claim fails: pleading lacks facts showing officer knew omission was required and intentionally omitted it; no duty to issue parking citation |
| Viability of conspiracy claim | Leckey claims Livingston conspired with insurer to abuse process | Defendants argue conspiracy depends on viable underlying tort (abuse of process) which is absent | Conspiracy claim fails because underlying abuse-of-process claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Franklin Cnty., 918 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (trial court discretion governs allowance of amended pleadings)
- Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 1998) (no liability where process carried out to authorized conclusion even with bad intent)
- Harris v. Brill, 844 A.2d 567 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements and gravamen of abuse of process tort)
- Clausi v. Stuck, 74 A.3d 242 (Pa. Super. 2013) (primary-purpose prong requires act outside authorized process or illegitimate aim)
- Kuzel v. Krause, 658 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (elements required to plead willful misconduct to overcome immunity)
- Keller v. Scranton City Treasurer, 29 A.3d 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (standard of review on appeal from dismissal on preliminary objections)
- Tullytown Borough v. Armstrong, 129 A.3d 619 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)