Lee, Dr. K. v. Norris Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Lee, Dr. K. v. Norris Plumbing & Heating, Inc. No. 1419 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Dr. Lee sued Norris for negligent sump pump installation in Centre County, filing in the trial court after appellate de novo review of a magisterial ruling.
- Work on the sump pump was completed in June 2011.
- December 2011 flooding occurred at the property after rainfall; Lee alleged Norris replaced the wrong sump pump.
- Todd Giddings & Associates prepared a December 31, 2011 report attributing the problem to the external pump.
- Lee received an insurance letter dated November 13, 2012 questioning which sump pump had failed.
- Lee filed the complaint in the common pleas court on January 20, 2015; the trial court granted Norris summary judgment on August 19, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations | Lee argues due diligence and concealment justify tolling | Norris contends no tolling; discovery rule not applicable | Discovery rule not applicable; statute runs two years from injury |
| Whether the record supports summary judgment on the limitations defense | Lee contends genuine issues exist on when he knew of the claim | Record shows knowledge by December 2011; discovery rule fail | Record shows no genuine issue; two-year period expired; judgment for Norris |
| Whether the trial court properly analyzed the discovery rule standards | Lee asserts misapplication of need for inquiry due diligence | Norris argues diligence not shown; no reasonable discovery delay | Court correctly applied discovery rule standards and rejected tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Pocono Int'l Raceway v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1983) (discovery rule tolls only when genuine inability to learn of the injury exists)
- Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265 (Pa. Super. 2016) (discovery rule requires due diligence and lack of knowledge to toll)
- Coleman v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 6 A.3d 502 (Pa. Super. 2010) (burden on proving applicability of discovery doctrine)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (concealment requires clear, precise, convincing evidence)
- Hayward v. Med. Ctr. of Beaver County, 608 A.2d 1040 (Pa. 1992) (awakening inquiry when injury known but cause not suspected)
- Wilson v. Elk-Dale, Corp., 964 A.2d 354 (Pa. 2009) (discovery rule applicability and due diligence considerations)