45 Pa. D. & C.5th 436
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Rothberg filed a complaint on April 24, 2014 against AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance Group for medical expenses from an automobile accident; service of the complaint occurred the same day.
- On September 8, 2014 AAA filed preliminary objections under Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) to strike the complaint for verification by plaintiff’s attorney rather than the party.
- Rule 1024 requires verification by the signer with personal knowledge or information and belief; Rule 1024(c) permits non-parties or others to verify only under specific circumstances; verification by attorney is governed by other rules.
- AAA’s preliminary objections argued the verification was improper; the court notes 1024, 1002, and related rules and authorities on proper verification and amendment.
- AAA’s objections were untimely under Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a); plaintiff subsequently filed preliminary objections to AAA’s objections, also untimely.
- The court dismissed both sets of preliminary objections as untimely, struck the verification, and allowed Rothberg to file a substituted verification and, if needed, an amended complaint within twenty days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of AAA’s preliminary objections | Not specified in opinion | Objections timely under Rule 1026(a) | AAA’s objections deemed untimely; dismissed |
| Remedy for defective verification | Not specified in opinion | Verification defective; improper assertion | Verification struck; substituted verification and possible amendment allowed within 20 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Yanofsky v. Bannacker, 46 Pa. D. & C.2d 435 (Pa. C.P. Phila. County 1969) (proper vehicle to challenge faulty verification via preliminary objection)
- Atlantic Credit & Fin., Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) (preliminary objection to defective verification proper; alternative remedy noted)
- Lewis v. Erie Ins. Exch., 281 Pa. Super. 193, 421 A.2d 1214 (1980) (leave to amend as remedy for defective verification discussed)
- Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 266 Pa. Super. 549, 405 A.2d 954 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1979) (discussion of standards for amending pleadings in procedural context)
- Harley Davidson Motor Co. v. Hartman, 296 Pa. Super. 37, 442 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982) (dismissal or dismissal with leave to amend generally favored when timely objections present)
- Yesavage, 653 A.2d 1319 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994) (proper method for challenging propriety of preliminary objections via preliminary objection to a preliminary objection)