Pennsbury Village Associates, LLC v. McIntyre
11 A.3d 906
Pa.2011Background
- Appellant Pennsbury Village Associates owns two parcels in Pennsbury Township surrounding a seven‑acre parcel containing the Township building; deed restrictions on adjacent Grant Program land limit use to open space and recreational purposes.
- In 2004, Pennsbury sought conditional use approval for a high‑density mixed‑use development; the Township imposed 55 restrictions on the conditional use.
- A 2006 Stipulation of Settlement limited access to the east parcel by a road on the Township’s land, expressly forbidding a direct road connection in front of the Township Building and outlining three access points via Grant Program land.
- County officials later opposed using Grant Program land for an access road, asserting deed restrictions and environmental concerns; Pennsbury sued McIntyre for breach of contract, tortious interference, and conspiracy.
- The trial court denied immunities raised under the Environmental Immunity Act; Commonwealth Court en banc reversed, holding McIntyre entitled to immunity because the breach related to enforcing environmental deed restrictions.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the stipulation negates immunity, whether deed restrictions constitute environmental law, and whether a business relationship exception applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the settlement render environmental immunity unenforceable? | Stipulation is contract; immunity cannot bar breach claims. | Waiver via settlement precludes anti‑SLAPP immunity. | Immunity unavailable due to overriding stipulation. |
| Is the Environmental Immunity Act implicated by pre‑existing settlements? | Act protects petitioning for environmental enforcement; settlement does not erase this. | Stipulation shows parties waived rights to immunity. | Act's immunity barred by pre‑existing settlement agreement. |
| Are deed restrictions environmental laws or regulations for immunity purposes? | Deed restrictions constitute environmental controls under the Act. | Restrictions are not environmental laws/regulations; immunity not triggered. | Court did not need to decide whether restrictions are environmental law; waiver via stipulation controls. |
| Does the business relationship exception apply to this case? | Exception not applicable because dispute concerns breach of contract, not business relationships. | Exception could shield actions interfering with existing relationships. | Not reached; waiver and stipulation preclude immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- DaimlerChrysler Motors Company v. Lew Williams, Inc., 142 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. App. 2006) (waiver of anti‑SLAPP protections in pre‑existing legal relationships defeats immunity)
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp., 427 Mass. 156 (Mass. 1998) (settlement waivers can strip anti‑SLAPP protections)
- Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hospital, 522 Pa. 325 (Pa. 1989) (settlement agreements may bar subsequent claims absent fraud or mutual mistake)
- Emery v. Mackiewicz, 429 Pa. 322 (Pa. 1968) (release considerations limitability of settlements affecting later claims)
- Taylor v. Solberg, 566 Pa. 150 (Pa. 2001) (ordinary meaning governs releases; contract law governs settlements)