92 A.3d 823
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Lisa M. Morgan (trustee) owned commercial property where an underground fuel-oil tank and product lines served boilers; McClure was hired March 1990 to investigate an oil odor and replaced underground product lines on March 27, 1990.
- Plaintiff alleges McClure failed to perform a pressure-tightness test and left a short section (~2 feet) of corroded pipe in place, causing ongoing leaks.
- State environmental authorities investigated in 1990–1992; a July 6, 1992 excavation revealed numerous perforations in the lines where they entered the building.
- Plaintiff sued (first process filed 1994; McClure joined 1995) asserting breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Pennsylvania Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act (STSPA).
- Trial court denied McClure’s initial summary judgment, later (after plaintiff deposition) granted McClure’s renewed summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds (June 30, 2004). Plaintiff appealed; other defendants were discontinued.
- Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it upheld summary judgment as to negligence (plaintiff did not appeal that portion), reversed summary judgment as to breach of contract and STSPA claims (holding discovery rule tolled/contract and STSPA claims timely under longer statutes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated law-of-the-case by granting renewed summary judgment after earlier denial | Trial court should not revisit its prior denial; law of the case prevents reopening | Court may reconsider its own prior pretrial rulings; renewed evidence justifies reconsideration | Denied — trial court may revisit its own prior rulings; no law-of-the-case violation |
| Whether existence/date of discovery (accrual) was a factual issue for jury or properly decided as a matter of law | Morgan contends she did not know until discovery that McClure’s work was defective; factual dispute for jury | McClure points to plaintiff’s deposition showing she knew by July 6, 1992; accrual is established | Held for McClure — undisputed deposition evidence showed plaintiff knew salient facts by July 6, 1992; accrual may be decided as a matter of law here |
| Whether plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim is time-barred or tolled by discovery rule (four-year statute) | Discovery rule tolled the limitations period; contract claim should have full four-year period measured from discovery | Trial court held claim time-barred because plaintiff discovered within four years from breach date but filed after that period | Reversed — discovery rule applies to contract claims; tolling means the contract claim survives summary judgment |
| Appropriate limitations period for private STSPA claim (two years v. longer) | Two-year limitations not applicable; STSPA private suits are governed by longer periods (6 or 20 years) | Trial court applied two-year statute and dismissed STSPA claim | Reversed on that ground — court found the two-year period inapplicable and plaintiff’s STSPA claim was timely under longer periods; precise period (6 v. 20) not decided because claim timely under either |
Key Cases Cited
- Ario v. Reliance Ins. Co., 602 Pa. 490, 980 A.2d 588 (Pa. 2009) (explains law-of-the-case doctrine and that a trial judge may revisit prior rulings)
- Fine v. Checcio, 582 Pa. 253, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (articulates discovery rule standard and when accrual may be decided as a matter of law)
- Pocono Int’l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 468 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1983) (statute of limitations begins when right to sue arises)
- Centolanza v. Lehigh Valley Dairies, Inc., 540 Pa. 398, 658 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1995) (private STSPA action treated like one by the Commonwealth)
- Dalrymple v. Brown, 549 Pa. 217, 701 A.2d 164 (Pa. 1997) (reasonable-diligence discovery standard is objective)