Appellant files this appeal from an order granting summary judgment and denying his claim for cоunsel fees. We affirm.
After plaintiffs’ (husband and wife’s) vehicíe was involved in a three car collision, they brought an action against the operators of the two other vehicles. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that their vehicle was traveling south along a roadway and that defendant, Lonny D. Robinson’s vehicle was traveling north on that same roadway. The Robinson vehicle was being followed by the Appellant’s automobile. Plaintiffs’ asserted that the Robinson vehicle crossed the center line colliding with their vehicle. Thеy also alleged that a subsequent second collision, between Appellant’s аutomobile and their vehicle, was caused by Appellant’s negligence. Appеllant responded by filing an Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim seeking an award of counsel fees on the basis that plaintiffs’ suit against him was based upon arbitrary, vexatious and bаd faith conduct. In addition to these pleadings various answers to interrogatories, admissions, and depositions were filed on the issues of liability.
A Motion for Summary Judgment was subsequently filed by Appellant asserting that the Answers Interrogatories and Depositions establish conclusively that he was not at fault, but rather that the collision was due to the negligencе of the Plaintiff-husband. This motion was denied. Sometime later Plaintiffs executed a generаl release discharging Robinson from liability. A praecipe to discontinue the action against Appellant was also filed. When Appellant failed to discontinue his counterclaim for counsel fees plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment averring that the record indicates that the commencement of this action was not arbitrary, vеxatious or in bad faith. The trial court’s order granting plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is the subject оf this appeal.
The court may require a party to pay another participant’s counsel fees if the party’s conduct in commencing the action was “аrbitrary, vexatious or in bad faith”. 42 Pa.C.
*607
S.A. § 2503;
Brenckle v. Arblaster,
In supporting his claim for attorney fees Appellant relied upon the Plaintiffs’ deposition, the deposition of the investigating officer and the accident report. We agree with the trial court that this evidence does not rаise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff-husband believed he was the sole cause of the accident or whether plaintiffs intended to annoy Apрellant by commencing the lawsuit. Although plaintiffs’ claim against Appellant may not have been a strong one and while they may have not been able to prove their сase of negligence, the record does not indicate that plaintiffs did not reasonably believe that their claim was valid under existing or developing law. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8352(1). In fact, it сan be noted that the trial court refused to grant Appellant’s motion for Summary Judgment on the liability issue.
Actions are not brought only where there is certain proof of liability аnd damages. Punishing all those who initiate actions which are not ultimately successful by granting the defendant’s request for counsel fees would *608 have a chilling effect on right to bring a suit for negligence. This was not the intent of the rule permitting recovery of counsel fees upon a showing of arbitrary, vexatious or bad faith conduct. Finding no evidence in the record raising a genuine issue concerning plaintiffs’ conduct in bringing this claim, we affirm the trial court’s order.
Order affirmed.