48 Pa. D. & C.5th 177
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Plaintiff filed amended complaint alleging defamation, harassment, fraud, mental distress, and threats based on a 2013 cease-and-desist letter from defense counsel.
- Defendant previously settled the related warranty action; settlement disputes occurred in 2013 before this suit.
- Amended Complaint reasserts post-settlement conduct as basis for claims; Count II seeks costs and fees.
- Court sustained a prior demurrer (Sept. 5, 2014) and granted leave to amend; amended pleading remains based on the letter.
- Defendant moved to demur again; Court analyzed each asserted cause of action under Rule 1020 and related standards.
- Court ultimately sustained the demurrer and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, finding no viable claims arising from the letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defamation claims are pled with publication. | Senick contends the letter communicated defamatory statements. | Letter was not published to a third party; communication to plaintiff alone. | Defamation failed for lack of publication to others. |
| Whether harassment constitutes a separate tort. | Senick asserts harassment as a standalone claim. | Pennsylvania does not recognize such a tort. | Harassment not cognizable as a separate tort. |
| Whether fraud was pled with sufficient particularity and reliance. | Fraud alleged but not properly pled; reliance needed. | Even if false, no justifiable reliance shown. | Fraud not stated; demurrer sustained. |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress was adequately pled. | Letter constitutes extreme conduct causing distress. | Letter not extreme/outrageous as a matter of law. | No extreme and outrageous conduct; IIED not stated. |
| Whether amendment would cure defects or futility bars further amendment. | Amendment should cure deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile since claims arise from letter. | Leave to amend denied; dismissal with prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc., 483 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. 1984) (elements of defamation; publication required; third-party communication)
- Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540 (Pa. Super. 2014) (demurrer standards; consider pleadings only; resolve doubts in favor of overruling demurrer)
- Schemberg v. Smicherko, 85 A.3d 1071 (Pa. Super. 2014) (demurrer standards; accept facts pled; draw reasonable inferences)
- Swisher v. Pitz, 68 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2005) (IIED; outrageous conduct must be extreme as a matter of law)
- Manley v. Fitzgerald, 997 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Commw. 2010) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Milliken v. Jacono, 60 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2012) (fraud elements; justifiable reliance requirement)
- DeAngelo v. Fortney, 515 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. 1986) (recognition that Pennsylvania courts have not recognized a separate 'harassment' tort)