LEBBIE v. LFL SHADY, L.P.
2:22-cv-01062
W.D. Pa.Dec 20, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs Fas Lebbie and Sabrina Fessler rented an apartment from LFL Shady, L.P. at Shadyside Commons, Pittsburgh, including use of a designated storage unit (C7).
- Plaintiffs stored valuable personal and business property, including a Kimberley Certificate worth over $40,000, in storage unit C7 after informing the leasing agent of their intent to use it.
- A property manager at LFL Shady, not seeing Plaintiffs' lock or documentation for C7, ordered maintenance to cut the lock and discard Plaintiffs' property.
- Plaintiffs discovered their property missing, reported the incident, and recovered only minimal items saved by maintenance.
- Plaintiffs filed suit alleging conversion, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and sought associated damages. LFL Shady moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Lease (Storage Unit Included) | Lease includes exclusive use of storage unit | Lease only covers apartment, not storage unit | Lease includes the checked-out storage unit |
| Conversion | LFL Shady unlawfully disposed of their property in C7 | Exculpatory lease clauses bar liability for lost property | Plaintiffs have a triable conversion claim; waivers invalid |
| Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment | LFL Shady's conduct deprived them of exclusive use of C7 | No breach; no actual lease term violated | Plaintiffs have a triable claim for breach |
| Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability | Insecurity of storage unit makes apartment unfit | Storage is not vital to habitability | Claim for breach of habitability dismissed |
| Strike Jury Demand & Damages Requests | Entitled to jury, punitive, compensatory damages, fees | Jury waiver enforceable; damages not recoverable | Motion to strike denied; waiver not clear/conspicuous |
Key Cases Cited
- Hand v. Fuller, 294 A.3d 468 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (lease interpretation is a question of law, court gives effect to writing's intent)
- Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 47 A.3d 1190 (Pa. 2012) (exculpatory clauses do not cover intentional/reckless conduct)
- Pugh v. Holmes, 405 A.2d 897 (Pa. 1979) (warranty of habitability requires vital facilities for habitation)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 69th St. Retail Mall, L.P., 126 A.3d 959 (Pa. 2015) (constructive eviction defined by substantial interference with possession)
- Bayne v. Smith, 965 A.2d 265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (procedural/substantive unconscionability standard for adhesion contracts)