Pennsylvania – eNotes: Liability – April 2025

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Pennsylvania Case Summaries

Caso v. Thaler
Pennsylvania Superior Court
No. 3210 EDA 2023

Decided: March 10, 2025

Court allows substitution after party’s death.

Background

This civil action arises from a medical malpractice suit filed in 2017 by Joan and Donald Caso (husband and wife) against Dr. Thaler, Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Southeast Radiology, and Springfield Hospital in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. While the action was pending, Donald died on May 8, 2019, and Joan died on May 10, 2019. On May 17, 2019, their son, Caso, was appointed as administrator of Joan’s estate and received the corresponding letters of administration. On May 8, 2020, Caso filed suggestions of death for both Joan and Donald. On May 26, 2020, Caso was appointed administrator of Donald’s estate, and on June 12, 2020, Caso received letters of administration for Donald’s estate. On August 4, 2023, Caso filed a Petition to amend the caption and substitute Plaintiffs. The Trial Court denied the Petition based on Caso’s failure to file his Petition to substitute within one year of a Suggestion of death.

In so ruling, the Trial Court relied on the language provided in 20 Pa.C.S. § 3375 (allowing defendants to petition to the court to abate an action when plaintiffs dies and a representative is not appointed within one year), as interpreted by Grimm v. Grimm, 149 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016). In Grimm, the Superior Court considered whether the Trial Court had jurisdiction to enter a non pros in favor of a deceased party defendant, and determined that because there was never any action taken by either the plaintiff or the other defendants to file a suggestion of death pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 2355, and no personal representative was substituted for the party defendant, the Trial Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the non pros. Caso appealed the Trial Court’s denial of the Petition to substitute parties, arguing, inter alia, that the Trial Court abused its discretion in dismissing this case when it relied on the holding of Grimm.

Holding

The Trial Court found Grimm to be “precedential, on point, and binding”. On appeal, the Court held, in a non-precedential decision, that Section 3375 does not require that a Petition to substitute the personal representative be filed within one year of the Plaintiff’s death, or even within one year of the filing of a Suggestion of death. It explained that to the extent the Trial Court relied on Grimm for such a conclusion, the language that the Trial Court relied on from Grimm as imposing a one-year time limit in which to file a Petition to substitute was merely dictum, indicating that Grimm’s holding was “limited to the issue of whether the lower court had jurisdiction to enter a non pros in favor of a deceased party defendant.”

Questions about this case can be directed to Haley Obrzut at (717) 255-7646 or hobrzut@tthlaw.com.

Crops v. WeCare Organics LLC
Pennsylvania Superior Court
2025 Pa. Super. 44, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 91

Decided: February 25, 2025

Superior Court rules that de facto merger requires “some sort of” proof of continuity of ownership or stockholder interest

Background

Campbell Crops filed a lawsuit against WeCare alleging that WeCare failed to pay several hauling service invoices. Another corporation, Denali Water Solutions, had acquired assets of WeCare. As a result, following the Trial Court’s entry of judgement against WeCare, Campbell Crops sought summary judgment against Denali alleging that exceptions to the general rule against successor liability existed. Citing the de facto merger clause, Campbell’s Motion for summary judgment was granted.

Denali appealed this decision citing a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the satisfaction of the continuity of ownership prong of the de facto merger clause. In support, Denali argued that individuals retained as part of the asset purchase agreement did not acquire any ownership interest, but instead acquired an executive management agreement which did not satisfy continuity of ownership.

Holding

The Court ruled that de facto merger requires some proof of continued ownership in breach of contract claims. The Court further held that receipt of an executive management agreement did not satisfy the continuity of ownership prong of the de facto merger exception to successor liability as this prong requires that an actual ownership interest was exchanged rather than mere alternative interests.

Questions about this case can be directed to Michael Moran at (267) 861-7598 or mmoran@tthlaw.com.

King v. Fraternity
Pennsylvania Superior Court
2025 Pa. Super. 8, 2025 Pa. Super. Lexis 19

Decided: January 13, 2025

Court compels production of interview notes as same were not protected by the attorney work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege.

Background

In 2021, Plaintiff brought suit against Alpha Sigma Tau Sorority (“AST”) following the death of her son. Plaintiff alleged members of AST encouraged the decedent to drink several highly alcoholic beverages. Then, the decedent fell down a steep slope, resulting in fatal injuries. In May of 2023, Plaintiff filed requests for production directed to AST regarding any documentation of interviews it had with its members. AST objected that such notes were not subject to disclosure under the work-product doctrine and attorney client privilege. Plaintiff responded to these objections by Moving to Compel the production of the notes.

The Trial Court conducted an in camera review of the interview notes and then entered an order directing AST to turn over the interview notes with partial redactions. The Trial Court found that the unredacted portions of interview notes did not violate the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney-work product doctrine, as the notes were made by the AST CEO, not at the direction of counsel. Additionally, the contents of the notes were merely a factual summary of what the interviewees had stated. In response, AST filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge the Order.

Holding

The Superior Court held the Trial Court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion by ordering the redacted interview notes to be disclosed to the Plaintiff, as AST failed to establish that the notes were protected by the attorney work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. AST did not carry its burden of establishing the facts needed to invoke the work product doctrine for the redacted notes, as there was no evidence showing the notes were created at counsel’s direction or contained counsel’s impressions. The redacted interview notes did not constitute privileged attorney-client communications, as the notes did not convey confidential information from AST to its counsel, but rather recorded statements made by third-party Beta Nu members in the presence of counsel. The Superior Court upheld the Trial Court Order compelling the disclosure of the redacted notes.

Questions about this case can be directed to Briana Vetter at (267) 861-7584 or bvetter@tthlaw.com.