Summary
This is a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Saylor of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in consolidated appeals involving the accrual and tolling of a survival action under Section 513(d) of the MCARE Act. The dissent argues that Section 513(d) codifies existing law concerning the outside limits for filing survival actions and functions as a hybrid statute of limitations and repose, rather than fundamentally altering accrual principles.
Questions Presented
- Whether Section 513(d) of the MCARE Act is a statute of repose that preserves the existing accrual rule for survival actions or instead fundamentally changes accrual by making death the event upon which the action arises.
- Whether Section 513(d) displaces the otherwise applicable statute of limitations and common-law principles governing accrual of survival actions.
- Whether fraudulent concealment may toll the limitations period applicable to a survival action under Section 513(d).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Pastierik v. Duquesne Light Co., 514 Pa. 517, 526 A.2d 323 (1987)(followed in dissent's reasoning)
- Anthony v. Koppers Co., 496 Pa. 119, 436 A.2d 181 (1981)(relied upon)
- Morrison Informatics, Inc. v. Members 1st FCU, 635 Pa. 636, 139 A.3d 1241 (2016)(relied upon)
- Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 608 Pa. 386, 11 A.3d 960 (2011)(relied upon)
- Kaskie v. Wright, 403 Pa. Super. 334, 589 A.2d 213 (1991)(relied upon)
- Krapf v. St. Luke's Hosp., 4 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. 2010)(relied upon)
- Landis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 628 N.W.2d 893 (Wis. 2001)(relied upon)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 974 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Super. 2009)(relied upon)
- Matharu v. Muir, 86 A.3d 250 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc)(questioned)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…