Gleason v. Borough of Moosic
15 A.3d 479
| Pa. | 2011Background
- 1993 flooding from allegedly negligent sewer/road construction in Moosic; corrective swale installed, flooding subsided.
- 1997 basement renovation revealed water damage and mold; family fell ill over subsequent years (1997–2000).
- March 2000 Indoor Air Solutions test showed high mold/bacteria counts; home occupants abandoned most contents in June 2000.
- October 17, 2001, Gleasons filed negligence and breach of contract claims against Borough, Ronca, and Pasonick.
- November 27, 2007, Borough moved for summary judgment asserting two-year negligence statute and immunity; Ronca and Pasonick joined with parallel motions.
- February 11, 2008, Appellants argued discovery rule tolled the statute; trial and Superior Court rulings led to a mixed posture, culminating in a grant of summary judgment that the discovery rule did not apply as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery rule tolling is a jury question | Gleasons argues genuine fact questions remain on diligence | Appellees contend diligence was clear; no tolling applicable | Jury must decide reasonable diligence question |
| Whether plaintiffs should have known injury/cause by 1997 | Evidence shows uncertainty until 2000 about mold causation | Flooding and mold signs in 1997 establish inquiry notice | Issue for jury; not inevitable as a matter of law |
| Is there a factual basis to toll the two-year limit under discovery rule | Discovery of mold health connection was not apparent before 2000 | Medical and environmental clues in 1997 should have prompted inquiry | Remand for fact-finder to determine tolling applicability |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. El-Daief, 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009) (discovery rule hinges on inquiry notice and factual causation)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (limits and application of the discovery rule; case law on fact-finder role)
- Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 608 A.2d 1040 (Pa. 1992) (timing of accrual and discovery principles)
- Cochran v. GAF Corp., 666 A.2d 245 (Pa. 1995) (burden on plaintiff to show reasonable diligence; often law on tolling dismissal)