Schiavone v. Aveta
41 A.3d 861
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Schiavone sues Aveta (Creative Pools) for injuries from a 2002 accident in Pike County, PA, alleging Aveta's employee Arnoul was negligent.
- Arnoul, an Aveta employee, drove a company vehicle owned/insured by Aveta; accident occurred while commuting home from work.
- Aveta is a New Jersey corporation with no PA office and claims no PA business; both parties are PA residents.
- Schiavone filed suit in Lackawanna County (venue dismissed; case transferred to Pike County).
- Trial court dismissed for lack of PA personal jurisdiction; on appeal, court reverses, addressing long-arm jurisdiction and due process.
- Court held Aveta may be subject to PA jurisdiction under 5322(a)(3) because the employee’s commuting in the company vehicle furthers the employer’s interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aveta has minimum contacts under 5322(a)(3). | Schiavone shows the PA accident occurred with a PA-resident employee using a company vehicle. | Aveta contends no PA business; employee’s PA residence is incidental; no purposeful availment. | Yes; Aveta had minimum contacts due to employment-related vehicle use in PA. |
| Whether due process is satisfied for PA to exercise jurisdiction. | Minimum contacts plus foreseeability of being sued in PA due to employment commuting. | Defendant argues contacts are not purposeful and not reasonably anticipate being haled into PA court. | Yes; PA forum is reasonable and fair under the due process standard. |
| Whether the 'employment contract' exception to the coming-and-going rule applies. | Employer provided and paid for the vehicle, enabling Pennsylvania commuting; exception applies. | Vehicle benefits are incidental; no control or costs related to commute by Aveta. | Yes; the employment contract exception applies, making the injury within the scope of employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaboury v. Gaboury, 988 A.2d 672 (Pa.Super.2009) (establishes when personal jurisdiction based on long-arm statute is proper)
- Kubik v. Letteri, 614 A.2d 1110 (Pa.1992) (two-part due-process analysis; minimum contacts then fair play factors)
- World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (S. Ct. 1980) (foreseeability alone not enough; purposeful availment required)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (S. Ct. 1985) (purposeful availment and fair play in jurisdiction analysis)
- Leisure Line v. W.C.A.B. (Walker), 986 A.2d 901 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (Employment contract exception to coming-and-going rule)
- Rox Coal Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Snizaski), 768 A.2d 384 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (employment-related travel exception to coming-and-going rule)
- Aventis Pasteur, Inc. v. Alden Surgical Co., Inc., 848 A.2d 996 (Pa.Super.2004) (two-part minimum contacts/fair play analysis)