.

Defense Digest

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Refuses to Expand Lawyer Liability

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2021

January 29, 2021

by Kimberly A. Boyer-Cohen

Key Points:

  • Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to adopt the continuous representation rule to toll the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action.
  • Statutes of limitations are legislative in character and consideration of tolling doctrines, such as the continuous representation rule, is most appropriately viewed as an exercise in statutory construction.
  • By refusing to adopt a different rule for legal malpractice cases, this decision has strengthened the public policy of prompt claim resolution and eliminated the prospect of a lawyer's indefinite liability for stale claims.

On December 22, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion in Clark v. Stover, _ A.3d _, 2020 WL 7502334 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2020), in which it refused to adopt the continuous representation rule to toll the statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action. Under the continuous representation rule, the applicable statute of limitations would not begin to run until the date on which the attorney-client relationship is terminated. Edwin Schwartz and Nicole Ehrhart, shareholders in our Professional Liability Department, litigated the case at the trial court level, and Kimberly A. Boyer-Cohen, special counsel in our Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group, was successful in defending that result before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

David Clark brought claims of professional negligence and breach of contract against Jeffrey Stover, Esquire, and his law firm. Mr. Stover had represented Mr. Clark in an underlying estate dispute in which Mr. Clark sought to contest the will of his deceased brother. Mr. Clark's claims in the underlying action were dismissed on November 10, 2009, and he admittedly learned of their dismissal within one week of the order. Mr. Stover subsequently appealed the decision in the underlying action on Mr. Clark's behalf, but the trial court's dismissal of the claims was affirmed on May 19, 2011, and allocatur was denied on May 16, 2012.

Mr. Clark did not commence his action against Mr. Stover and his law firm until October 1, 2015, at which time he alleged that Mr. Stover had failed to adequately prosecute the underlying action on his behalf. Upon Mr. Stover's motion, the common pleas court awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis that the claims were untimely and barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. In doing so, the trial court found that Mr. Clark was aware of the alleged negligence and the asserted breach more than four years before filing the malpractice action such that the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment doctrine did not apply.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed. The Superior Court also addressed Mr. Clark's request for adoption of the continuous representation rule to permit statutes of limitations for causes of action sounding in legal malpractice to be tolled until the attorney’s ongoing representation is complete. In rejecting Mr. Clark's request, the Superior court explained that it was bound by its previous rejection of the continuous representation rule in Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausang, 839 A.2d 437, 442 (Pa. Super. 2003), aff’d per curiam, 881 A.2d 1266 (Pa. 2005).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently allowed discretionary appeal solely to consider whether to adopt the continuous representation rule. On appeal, Mr. Clark argued that strong policy justifications support the rule's implementation, including the client's entitlement to repose confidence in a lawyer's abilities, avoidance of disruption of attorney-client relationships and providing the opportunity for lawyers to cure mistakes before being sued. Mr. Clark also argued the continuous representation rule was favored by a majority of other jurisdictions.

In response, Mr. Stover argued that adoption of the continuous representation rule would adversely impact the purpose of the statute of limitations—"to expedite litigation and thus discourage delay and the presentation of stale claims which may greatly prejudice the defense of such claims." With regard to policy, Mr. Stover explained that the longer four-year statute of limitations which applies to legal malpractice claims sounding in contract, as well as the discovery rule and the fraudulent concealment doctrine, already provides substantial protections to plaintiffs. Furthermore, application of the continuous representation rule would also serve as a disincentive for lawyers to remain involved in matters to attempt to remediate difficulties which may arise during the course of legal representation. Finally, Mr. Stover highlighted that the rejection or refusal to adopt the continuous representation doctrine is in keeping with the approach of many other jurisdictions and pointed out that, of the jurisdictions that apply a continuous representation approach, several limit the application to instances in which the plaintiff/client lacks knowledge of the alleged malpractice prior to the termination of the attorney-client relationship.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Stover’s position. The court reasoned that statutes of limitations are legislative in character and that consideration of tolling doctrines, such as the continuous representation rule, is most appropriately viewed as an exercise in statutory construction. Notably, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that Mr. Clark's argument was entirely policy-driven and that he pointed to nothing in the relevant statutes that would militate in favor of application of a continuous representation approach. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that the appropriate balance should be determined by the General Assembly and affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Clark's legal malpractice claims.

By refusing to adopt a different rule for legal malpractice cases, the decision in Clark has bolstered the public policy of prompt claim resolution and eliminated the prospect of a lawyer's indefinite liability for stale claims. As has historically been the case, the statutory period for a legal malpractice cause of action commences upon the happening of the alleged breach of duty and may only be tolled, in appropriate cases, by the discovery rule or the fraudulent concealment doctrine. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's holding in Clark confirms the long-standing rejection of the continuous representation rule in the Commonwealth and makes clear that attorneys will not be subjected to a more stringent statute of limitations than other professionals.

*Ed is a shareholder in our Harrisburg, Pennsylvania office and can be reached at (717) 651-3700 or easchwartz@mdwcg.com. Kim is special counsel in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. She can be reached at (215) 575-2707 or kaboyer-cohen@mdwcg.com. Nicole, a shareholder, works in our Harrisburg office and can be reached at (717) 651-3512 or nmehrhart@mdwcg.com.

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 1, January 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Thought Leadership

WCJ Improperly Refused to Conduct C&R Hearing and Erroneously Required Settlement of All Pending Petitions

In this case, the claimant sustained injuries in the course and scope of her employment as a registered nurse. The employer acknowledged the injury by a Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP).  Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) expanded the description of injury. The employer then filed a Termination Petition, alleging the claimant was fully recovered from the injuries. Providers filed Utilization Review (UR) Petitions, challenging UR determinations finding their chiropractic treatment to be not reasonable and necessary. A settlement of the claim was eventually reached, and the employer filed a Petition to Seek Approval of a Compromise and Release (C&R) Agreement. The C&R outlined that the agreement fully resolved all future workers’ compensation claims except for the termination and UR Petitions. Briefs were filed and one day later, the WCJ issued an Interlocutory Order which stated if instructions were not followed regarding filing of a C&R, a settlement hearing date would not be given. The employer complied with the order, and filed the C&R. Subsequently, the WCJ notified the parties that the C&R must resolve all issues in the petitions, or would not be entertained. A settlement hearing was never held, and the WCJ then issued a decision, granting the Termination Petition and dismissing the UR Petitions. The WCJ also said that the Petition for Approval of a C&R was dismissed without prejudice, as the issues in the Termination and UR Petitions went to a decision. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Board). The Board granted the claimant’s appeal, finding that the WCJ violated the requirement of Section 449 that an expedited hearing be held when a Petition for Approval of a C&R is filed.  The Board further held that it was legally incorrect for the WCJ to insist that the C&R resolve all issues raised by the pending Petitions. The Board remanded the case to a new WCJ, and Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. The court affirmed the Board and held that the WCJ erred, as a matter of law, by refusing to hold an expedited hearing within 30 days, once the Petition for Approval of a C&R was filed.  The court noted that the language of Section 449(b) is mandatory, and a settlement hearing is not discretionary or dependent on a party’s separate request for a stay, or whether the record has been closed. The court further rejected Employer’s argument that the case should not be remanded to a new WCJ for a new decision on the termination and and UR Petitions, as the Board passed no judgment on whether the C&R Agreement resolved the termination and UR Petitions, and left it for the WCJ to decide in connection with the Petition for Approval of a C&R.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed.