.

Defense Digest

Taking vs. Tort: Which Is It in Relation to Sanitary Sewer Overflows?

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 2021

March 1, 2021

by Christian D. Marquis

Key Points:

  • To constitute a taking, purposeful and deliberate action is required.
  • A corrective action plan with the aim of reducing inflow and infiltration in a sanitary sewer system is evidence against the finding of a taking with respect to overflows.
  • The failure to replace piping in an aging sanitary sewer system due to the lack of sufficient public funding does not constitute deliberate and purposeful action.

In Matter of Franklin Township Sewage Authority, 233 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020), the Commonwealth Court clarified the standard to distinguish whether a landowner damaged by repeated sanitary sewer overflows may claim that his property has been “taken” in the context of an inverse condemnation under the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code or whether the landowner is limited to a common law tort claim. Often this issue presents a dilemma to attorneys on both sides of the “v” in determining the legal theory applicable to the prosecution or defense of a case. Given the aging sanitary sewer infrastructure in most urban and suburban areas of Pennsylvania, coupled with the lack of sufficient public funding, this problem frequently presents itself in civil actions when damages are alleged that, if proved, might amount to the full-value level of a “taking,” although a common law tort theory such as negligence has been pleaded.

In Franklin Township, the landowner commenced an inverse condemnation action by filing a petition for the appointment of a board of viewers against the Franklin Township Municipal Sanitary Authority (Authority), contending that a de facto taking of his property had resulted from repeated sanitary sewer overflows that occurred in November 2003, August 2007, and October 2012. The Authority filed preliminary objections, asserting that the petition was barred because the landowner’s proper redress was by way of a tort action. After an evidentiary hearing in the trial court, the preliminary objections were sustained, and an appeal to the Commonwealth Court followed.

It was agreed that the sanitary sewer overflows onto the landowner’s property were caused by significant rainfalls that resulted in inflow and infiltration into the aging sanitary sewer system, which primarily consisted of terra cotta piping. Because the Authority attempted to reduce inflow and infiltration through a corrective action plan that involved inspections and repairs that did not intend to allow inflow and infiltration into its system, it was determined that the Authority had made a good faith attempt to fix the problem. The evidence also demonstrated that the problem could not have been eliminated unless the Authority had spent approximately $245 million to replace over 245 miles of piping. However, as with most local agencies owning aging infrastructure, the Authority did not have sufficient funding to upgrade its system.

The court noted the following standard to prove a de facto taking:

(1) [the] condemnor has the power to condemn the land under eminent domain procedures; (2) exceptional circumstances have substantially deprived the [landowner] of the use and enjoyment of the property; and (3) the damages sustained were the immediate, necessary, and unavoidable consequences of the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Franklin Township, 233 A.3d at 1021 (citation omitted). The court also stated that a “de facto taking must result from the governmental body’s actual exercise of the power of eminent domain.” Critical to whether a taking occurs, the court also stated, “[t]he injury complained of [must] [be] a direct result of intentional action by an entity incidental to its exercise of its eminent domain power.”

In affirming the trial court, the court in Franklin Township indicated that the facts were more akin to those considered in the Commonwealth Court’s unreported opinion of In re Condemnation by the Youngwood Borough Authority, 2014 WL 10298904 (Pa. Cmwlth. Dec. 5, 2014) rather than those found in the case of In re Mountaintop Area Joint Sanitary Authority, 166 A.3d 553 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017). The latter case, cited by the landowner, was found to involve a taking, primarily because the authority chose to operate its system in a manner that would result in sanitary sewer overflows due to the design of its system. Therefore, the overflows resulted from a purposeful and deliberate drainage plan.

However, the court in Franklin Township essentially adopted the holding in the unreported Youngwood Borough Authority opinion, in essence making it precedential based on similar facts. The original sewer system of the Authority operated as intended when it was first constructed in 1968-69, utilizing terra cotta pipes. Since 2003, the landowner’s property had flooded as a result of inflow from illegally connected downspouts and infiltration due to cracks, breaks and separations that are natural to aging terra cotta pipes. The Authority had not intended to have inflow and infiltration in its system and had a corrective action plan that included a lateral inspection program to identify and repair problems. Furthermore, the Authority had even installed a check valve on the landowner’s property that stopped basement flooding, although sewage still flowed into a retention pond on the property a few times a year. Therefore, the court held that a de facto taking had not occurred because the landowner’s injury had not resulted from a purposeful or deliberate action by the Authority with respect to the manner in which it chose to operate its system.

Of particular significance with respect to Pennsylvania’s aging sanitary sewer infrastructure was the court’s consideration of the evidence related to the cost to remediate the Authority’s terra cotta pipe sewage system. The trial court addressed this issue through the landowner’s argument that the Authority’s failure to replace the terra cotta piping was a deliberate and purposeful action amounting to a de facto taking. The court disagreed with the landowner, holding that, because of the lack of adequate funding, the choice to replace the entire system was not even on the table to consider. The choice would only have been available if the funding existed, and, only then, could the court have potentially found that the failure to replace the system was deliberate and purposeful so as to constitute a de facto taking.

 *Christian is a shareholder and works in our Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office. He can be reached at 412.803.1142 or cdmarquis@mdwcg.com.

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 2, March 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

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

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. 

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

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

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.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

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.