Maverick Steel Co. v. Dick Corporation/Barton Malow
54 A.3d 352
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Maverick sues DBM after W & K defaulted on a structural steel subcontract for the Stadium Project; USF & G insured W & K’s performance bond.
- Maverick alleges DBM extorted funds from USF & G to cover overruns, interfering with W & K’s relationship with its surety and causing W & K’s bankruptcy.
- Maverick asserts claims including breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy, trade libel, and intentional interference with business relationships.
- Trial court dismissed Maverick’s libel claim as time-barred and granted directed verdict on the interference counts on limitations grounds.
- On appeal, the court held the interference claim was not time-barred and remanded for merits; it reversed the directed verdict and directed further proceedings.
- The court declined to address the final issue as moot and remanded for factual resolution of the interference claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What statute of limitations governs interference claim? | Maverick argues interference based on ongoing conduct, not libel. | DBM argues gravamen is libel, so one-year trade libel statute applies. | Two-year statute applies; not time-barred. |
| Gravamen of interference claim is based on libel? | Gravamen includes non-defamatory conduct; not solely libel. | Gravamen is libel-based. | Not solely libel; not time-barred under two-year limitations. |
| Reliance on Evans v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. controlling? | Evans supports libel-based limitations; inapplicability depends on gravamen. | Evans governs libel-based claims only. | Evans inapposite; not controlling. |
| Evidence sufficiency to support interference claim? | Maverick presented prima facie interference evidence (course of conduct, threats, funding demands). | Court should assess merits only if time-bar resolved; otherwise apply summary rules. | The directed verdict was improper on limitations; merits must be resolved on remand. |
| Law of the case/coequal jurisdiction concerns? | Two rulings on interference claim are law of the case. | Issues moot once remand issued. | Final issue moot; Judgment reversed and remanded for merits; law-of-the-case issue not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pro Golf Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Company, 570 Pa. 242 (Pa. 2002) (trade libel limitations apply)
- Evans v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 601 A.2d 330 (Pa. Super. 1991) (one-year libel-based limitations)
- Steffy & Son, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, 7 A.3d 278 (Pa. Super. 2010) (Restatement 767 factors for interference)
- Skonieczny v. Cooper, 37 A.3d 1211 (Pa. Super. 2012) (de novo review of legal questions; standard)
- Burger v. Blair Medical Associates, 600 Pa. 194 (Pa. 2009) (legal question review for stat/limitations)
- Fetherolf v. Torosian, 759 A.2d 391 (Pa. Super. 2000) (directed verdict abuse standard)