Flanagan, B. v. Mine Run, Inc.
187 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Brian Flanagan slipped on unsalted stairs at a complex doing business as "Eagle Stream Apartments." The name is a fictitious name; the underlying corporate owner/operator appears to be Eagle Stream Trust.
- Flanagan learned an insurer (Greater New York Insurance Company) was investigating and later informed his counsel that its insured (identified as Eagle Stream Trust) was not liable.
- Flanagan sued before the statute of limitations expired, naming "Mine Run, Inc., d/b/a Eagle Stream Apartments." Service was made at the Eagle Stream premises.
- Mine Run filed preliminary objections arguing Flanagan failed to allege possession/control by Mine Run. After the limitations period ran, Flanagan filed a first amended complaint dropping Mine Run and naming "Eagle Stream Apartments," acknowledging Eagle Stream Trust operated the property.
- Mine Run continued to participate (untimely objections, answer in initial-caption form, summary judgment) and denied any association with Eagle Stream Apartments. The trial court granted summary judgment in a one-sentence order; the Superior Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may amend a complaint after the statute of limitations to correct the defendant's name | Flanagan: amendment was a correction, filed within 90 days, and not a new party; defendants had notice and knew they were the intended defendants | Mine Run: amendment added/changed parties after limitations; Mine Run not associated with Eagle Stream; statute of limitations bars claims | Amendment was permissible: served entity (Eagle Stream Apartments) had notice and knew it was intended defendant; amendment filed within 90 days; Mine Run dismissed but owner/operator remains defendant |
| Whether service at the business premises under the trade name suffices to notify the true corporate owner/operator | Flanagan: service on the premises under the trade name put the owner/operator on notice and subjected the assets of the operating entity to liability | Mine Run: mere service on the trade name does not bind an unrelated corporate defendant | Court followed Clark: service on the business under its trade name can be effective notice to the operating owner; assets of the operating entity are subject to liability |
| Whether Mine Run, despite denying association, can assert statute of limitations defense after engaging in litigation | Flanagan: Mine Run’s participation showed awareness and waived gamesmanship; equitable considerations favor allowing amendment | Mine Run: maintained no connection and pressed limitations defense | Court found Mine Run’s conduct (litigating and asserting defenses) indicated sufficient notice to permit amendment; Mine Run to be dismissed as a defendant |
| Whether trial court properly granted summary judgment without explaining reasoning | Flanagan: lack of reasoning required appellate review and prevented concise Rule 1925(b) statement | Mine Run: not directly defended the procedural form of the summary judgment order | Superior Court reviewed de novo and reversed summary judgment, addressing the statute-of-limitations/amendment legal standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Wakefern Food Corp., 910 A.2d 715 (Pa. Super. 2006) (service on business under trade name can provide notice to the operating/owning corporate entity and permit amendment)
- E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary judgment standard and appellate review principles)
- Ferraro v. McCarthy-Pascuzzo, 777 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2001) (amendments that effectively add new parties after the statute of limitations are generally disallowed)
- Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.2d 540 (Pa. Super. 2014) (leave to amend should be liberally granted absent legal error or prejudice)
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (definition and consequences of spoliation of evidence)