Varner-Mort, D. v. Kapfhammer, B., 109 A.3d 244

May 6, 2009 car crash involving Varner-Mort and Kapfhammer.
June 27, 2011, Varner-Mort and Mort sue Kapfhammer for negligence and loss of consortium.
Appellants chose limited tort under MVFRL; non-economic damages require a serious injury.
Kapfhammer argues two-year statute of limitations under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(2) bars the action.
Trial court granted summary judgment relying on records showing a May 9, 2009 treatment epoch.
Appellants argued Walls v. Scheckler dictates a discovery rule for when a serious injury is known or should be known; trial court denied; judgment entered against Appellants; appellate court reverses and remands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the two-year period begin for limited-tort MVFRL actions?	Discovery of serious injury delays accrual (Walls rule).	Accrual starts at accident under standard rule.	Genuine issue of material fact remains; summary judgment improper.
Does the Bailey affidavit establish a definite discovery timeline for serious impairment?	Affidavit supports later discovery date (June 8, 2010).	Record shows earlier notice; not dispositive; jury should resolve.	Fact issue for determination by factfinder; cannot decide on summary judgment.

Walls v. Scheckler, 700 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 1997) (discovery rule for when a limited-tort plaintiff learns of a serious injury)
Haines v. Jones, 830 A.2d 579 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discusses general accrual timing in car accident cases)
Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 609 Pa. 353, 15 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2011) (fact-intensive inquiry on when awareness of injury arises)
Walls v. Scheckler, 700 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 1997) (long-form discussion of discovery-based accrual under MVFRL)
Borough of Moosic, 15 A.3d 485 (Pa. 2011) (recognizes factual questions on discovery timing for serious injury)
Swords v. Harleysville Ins. Companies, 584 Pa. 382, 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005) (summary judgment standards and standard of review)