Resurrection from Repose, Discussion board Procuring, and Pennsylvania’s “Borrowing Statute”

Litigation technique is a dynamic course of from pre-suit by means of the appellate techniques. For events initiating an motion, selecting essentially the most advantageous courtroom or “discussion board” is essential. Attorneys and their shoppers take into account many components about completely different courts which might influence the case final result. Every part from the standard of the bench, jury pool composition, substantive legislation, and a discussion board’s procedural and discovery guidelines have potential to tip the scales in favor or towards a specific discussion board and likewise dictate protection technique. In a latest resolution, Kornfeind v. New Werner Holding Co., 2022 Pa. LEXIS 1172 (Aug. 16, 2022 ), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court docket illustrated the significance of 1 ingredient of a complete alternative of discussion board evaluation: understanding which state’s legal guidelines will possible apply to the case and the way the “alternative of legislation” might compel a sure final result.

The place Can a Company Defendant Be Sued?

Litigants and their attorneys shouldn’t have an unfettered proper to sue anybody anyplace. The U.S. Supreme Court docket has dominated that the U.S. Structure imposes limits on the place an out-of-state firm might need to defend itself. A plaintiff may sue a corporate defendant — for-profit or non-profit — in courts situated: (1) within the firm’s house state, that means the state of incorporation or wherein the corporate maintains its principal office; and (2) in these states the place the corporate systematically served that state’s marketplace for a particular firm services or products that offers rise, in-state, to the lawsuit. Nevertheless, even the two-factor check for the place an organization could also be sued is extra nuanced than meets the attention. It’s important to protection technique to remain updated on adjustments or new interpretations of the legislation. What was once considered a basis for jurisdiction, may not always hold true.

Which Jurisdiction’s Regulation Will Profit Protection? Selections of Regulation, “Borrowing Statutes,” and the Kornfeind v. New Werner Holding Co. Choice

Along with evaluating the implications of whether or not a specific courtroom has jurisdiction, protection attorneys should be ready to advocate for which state’s legislation ought to apply to a case and even to particular points throughout the identical case. This requires deep analyses of many potential points. Each state has its personal statutory, frequent legislation, and regulatory physique of legislation. The legal guidelines of every of the fifty states fluctuate from each other in methods refined, substantive, and vital. Furthermore, fits introduced in federal courtroom function by completely different guidelines. Add in that many states have “Borrowing Statutes,” which permit a courtroom to “borrow” a statute of limitations from one other jurisdiction the query turns into: “which physique of legislation applies to which half of any given dispute?”

Pennsylvania’s Kornfeind resolution exemplifies the authorized complexity. The case concerned the query of whether or not Pennsylvania would “borrow” Illinois’ statute of repose. The Kornfeind plaintiff, an Illinois resident, fell at house from an allegedly faulty ladder bought in Illinois. The plaintiff sued the Pennsylvania-based successor to the ladder-manufacturer in Pennsylvania, the place venue guidelines allowed the motion to be introduced in Philadelphia County. Pennsylvania has what’s referred to as a “Borrowing Statute,” the Uniform Statute of Limitations on Overseas Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5521. The Borrowing Statute supplies, that for motion arising out-of-state, like in Kornfeind, if the legislation of the state the place the motion arose has a shorter statute of limitations than Pennsylvania’s, the shorter statute will apply. The Kornfeind courtroom needed to decide whether or not the Pennsylvania Borrowing Statute would require invoking the Illinois statute of repose, which might have barred your entire lawsuit. [1]

Pennsylvania does not have a statute of repose that would be applicable to the claims the plaintiff pursued. By contrast, the Illinois statute of repose would bar the Kornfeind lawsuit because more than 12 years had passed (the time limit set by the statute of repose) since the product was sold. The Kornfeind manufacturer argued that the Borrowing Statute should encompass statutes of repose so that the Pennsylvania court could apply the 12-year frame to the suit, which would cause plaintiff’s case to fail as matter of law. The Kornfeind court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It held that the Pennsylvania Borrowing Statute was not to be read as borrowing the Illinois statute of repose.

A Law by Any Other Name Is Not as Sweet: What Does It Mean if a Law Is Considered “Procedural” Versus “Substantive?”

When issues emerge regarding which jurisdiction’s law should be applied, how a law is characterized by the court hearing the case can have a significant impact on strategy. Generally, courts will apply their host-state’s procedural laws or rules. However, if the law is characterized as “substantive,” courts must undertake a “choice of law” analysis to determine which state’s substantive law should apply. By way of example, in Pennsylvania, statutes of limitation are considered procedural in nature. Therefore, Pennsylvania courts would ordinarily apply its statute of limitations to a given cause of action (but the legislature has adopted the Borrowing Statute to dissuade litigants from filing suit in Pennsylvania for the purpose of extending the statute of limitations). Even though statutes of limitations and statutes of repose are both defenses that involve arguing that a cause of action cannot proceed based on a specified length of time, the Kornfeind court explained in its analysis that statutes of repose are substantive. This means that the decision of which state’s law to apply is subject to an additional analysis for “choice of law.” These “choice of law” analyses also differ by jurisdiction.

In short, The Kornfeind court held that the plain text of the Borrowing Statute did not encompass the statute of repose. Therefore, even though the case would be dismissed if Illinois law controlled, it is not shut out as a matter of law in Pennsylvania. When it comes to forum-specific strategy, the devil is in all the details.

Key Takeaways

• Where a lawsuit is filed is not always in the plaintiff’s home state or the state where an accident or injury occurred. The plaintiff may file in a different state, but the court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Attention to jurisdictional jurisprudence is essential.
• Litigation requires familiarity with the procedural and substantive rules of the court in which the action is brought.
• Defense strategy should include analysis of the laws of any state related to the cause of action, regardless of where plaintiff filed suit. Counsel should identify differences in among the state’s law and compare which is favorable.
• It is important to not only identify differences among states, but also identify whether the specific legal issue is a matter of procedural or substantive law and how that informs choice of law analyses.
• Changes in the law should be closely followed, including legislative action as well as appellate case law applying statutes.
• Do not assume an issue is procedural or an issue is substantive; make the determination state-by-state and review new case law on the issue. Then, evaluate whether any statutes would apply to change the expected application (like the Borrowing Statute).

If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact William D. Kennedy (kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com; 215. 864.6816) or Kimberly M. Collins (collinskm@whiteandwilliams.com; 856.317.3655).

---

[1] Statues of repose are comparable however distinct from statutes of limitations. A statute of limitations bars a plaintiff from suing anybody too lengthy after the harm or hurt occurred, a statute of repose likewise bars actions towards defendants which can be introduced too lengthy from the date of the final culpable act or omission of the defendant. Subsequently, on the shut of the statute of repose there could be no motion towards the defendant- even when the harm had but to happen.