Liberty Mutual v. Sanders, N.
1570 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 29, 2016Background
- On March 5, 2011 Nicole Sanders, a student at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh, had a dorm-room stove fire that triggered sprinklers and damaged rooms. The stove was removed and destroyed in early 2012; it was never tested and no record documents the disposal.
- Liberty Mutual and Erie Insurance sued Sanders in 2013 alleging negligence (and Liberty Mutual also asserted a contractual indemnity claim) for the fire-related damage.
- Sanders moved for summary judgment arguing appellants committed spoliation by disposing of the stove and sought preclusion of any evidence as to fire causation; the trial court granted the motion and barred appellants from presenting causation evidence.
- Appellants appealed, conceding fault for disposal but arguing (1) their fault was minimal, (2) prejudice to Sanders was not significant, and (3) the court should have imposed a lesser sanction (e.g., a jury instruction) instead of preclusion/summary judgment.
- The Superior Court reviewed the three-part Schmid spoliation test (fault, prejudice, available lesser sanctions) and affirmed the trial court, finding appellants at fault, Sanders suffered significant prejudice, and preclusion of causation evidence was an appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanders) | Defendant's Argument (Liberty Mutual & Erie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants' disposal of the stove constitutes spoliation | Stove disposal deprived appellants of the object necessary to prove causation; sanction is warranted | Appellants largely conceded disposal but claimed minimal fault because stove was allegedly cleaned/available for months | Court: Appellants at fault; record does not support claim stove was available; spoliation found |
| Whether prejudice to Sanders was significant | Loss of stove prevented Sanders from proving an alternative cause (malfunction) and thus is significant prejudice | Appellants: prejudice was minimal and speculative because Sanders’ alternative cause was speculative; compared to cases with less prejudice | Court: Prejudice was significant because appellants never tested or preserved the stove and Sanders cannot prove malfunction without it |
| Whether a lesser sanction than preclusion was available | Preclusion of causation evidence is appropriate to avoid unfairness to Sanders | Appellants: court should have imposed a lesser sanction (e.g., adverse jury instruction) rather than preclusion or summary judgment | Court: Preclusion of causation evidence was an appropriate sanction; appellants waived jury-instruction argument and never proposed a concrete lesser sanction |
| Whether summary judgment was improper given view of facts in favor of nonmoving party | Sanders argued preclusion left appellants with no causation evidence, so summary judgment was proper | Appellants argued genuine issues of material fact remained and sanction was excessive | Court: Affirmed — preclusion of causation evidence effectively left appellants without proof, justifying summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (defines spoliation of evidence)
- Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) (articulates three-prong spoliation test: fault, prejudice, available sanctions)
- Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Div., 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2001) (applies Schmid factors and discusses range of sanctions, including jury instruction)
- PTSI, Inc. v. Haley, 71 A.3d 304 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discusses fault/privity and duty to preserve evidence)
- Schroeder v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., 710 A.2d 23 (Pa. 1998) (adopts Schmid test in Pennsylvania)