126 A.3d 959
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Sears, as tenant, sued the landlord entities (collectively the Landlord) for breach of the Lease, constructive eviction, and tortious interference with the Lease.
- Sears alleged long-term maintenance failures at the Premises and parking garage, with repeated notices and self-help attempts for repair, which the Landlord allegedly failed to remedy.
- Sears closed its Upper Darby Sears store in December 2011 and liquidated in 2012 due to the Premises’ deterioration and unremedied conditions.
- A jury awarded Sears rent abatement due to constructive eviction and damages for intentional interference; the Landlord and Ashkenazy challenged the verdict via JNOV motions.
- The trial court denied the JNOV motions; the court later denied Sears’s punitive-damages submission, prompting Sears to seek punitive damages at trial.
- This court vacated judgment solely to permit a new trial on punitive damages, remanding for that issue while leaving other aspects intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive eviction sufficiency | Sears: accumulated maintenance failures substantially interfered with possession. | Landlord: failures alone do not meet the substantial-interference standard; Sears continued to operate. | JNOV not warranted on constructive eviction; evidence supported substantial interference when viewed cumulatively. |
| Tortious interference by Ashkenazy | Ashkenazy acted outside Landlord’s scope to disrupt Sears and drive out the tenant. | Ashkenazy was Landlord’s agent; cannot tortiously interfere with its own contract. | Court upheld jury finding of interference; Ashkenazy not liable as agent; however, agency issue resolved against Appellants here, and damages affirmed. |
| JNOV on constructive eviction and rent | Evidence of persistent neglect warranted eviction remedy and rent abatement. | Evidence insufficient for constructive eviction; rent should have continued. | Trial court did not err in denying JNOV on constructive eviction; jury could find a substantial impairment cumulatively. |
| Jury instruction adequacy for constructive eviction | Instruction should emphasize substantial decrease in utility and context from the cited cases. | Instruction properly conveyed law; no clear abuse or misdirection. | No reversible error; instruction not shown to mislead or confuse the jury. |
| Punitive damages | Pennsylvania law allows punitive damages for outrageous intentional interference; should have been submitted to the jury. | Record lacked willful, reckless, or outrageous conduct justifying punitive damages. | Judgment vacated and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages; other rulings remain unaffected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollock v. Morelli, 369 A.2d 458 (Pa. Super. 1976) (economic attractiveness and quiet enjoyment inform constructive eviction analysis)
- Checker Oil Co. of Del., Inc. v. Harold H. Hogg, Inc., 380 A.2d 815 (Pa. Super. 1977) (substantial decrease in utility required for eviction)
- Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper, 251 A.2d 268 (N.J. 1969) (reasonable time to vacate; persistent issues may warrant eviction)
- Jonnet Dev. Corp. v. Dietrich Inds., Inc., 463 A.2d 1026 (Pa. Super. 1983) (quiet enjoyment and constructive eviction considerations)
- Empire Trucking Co., Inc. v. Reading Anthracite Coal Co., 71 A.3d 923 (Pa. Super. 2013) (punitive damages for outrageous conduct in intentional interference)
- Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2005) (standard for punitive damages: willful, wanton or reckless conduct)