Nicole E. Tsiaras

Key Points: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that mere ownership does not render a party indispensable in a premises liability action.  The Supreme Court held that the indispensability of a party who co-owns a property that is the subject of a premises liability action hinges on that co-owner’s control and possession of the property.  Recently, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania established a new rule relative to indispensable parties. Specifically, in Simone v. Alam, 333 A.3d 359 (Pa. 2025), the court held that a tenant in common who did not exercise possession or control over the subject premises is not an indispensable party in a premises liability action.  Nicole Simone, the plaintiff, alleged that she slipped and fall on an area of ice that had accumulated in the common area of a rental property owned and operated by the defendant. At the time of the alleged incident, the property was co-owned by the defendant and his brother, who was not named as a defendant. Despite knowing that the defendant and his brother co-owned the property as tenants in common, the plaintiff never sought to join the brother as an additional defendant. Instead, her position was that the defendant was solely responsible for the hazardous condition that caused her injuries as he was the property owner in possession and control of the premises. After expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that regardless of his brother’s lack of possession or control over the property, his brother’s status as a co-owner of the property made him an indispensable party. In opposition, the plaintiff maintained that the brother was not an indispensable party as he was merely a co-owner with no possession or control over the operations of the premises as a rental property.  The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted by the trial court and upheld by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Both courts held that the brother’s status as a mere co-owner of the property was enough to render him an indispensable party, thus depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and requiring dismissal of the action.  On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue was whether a tenant in common of real property who did not exercise possession or control over the property was an indispensable party in a premises liability action. As part of its ruling on this issue, the Supreme Court analyzed Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2227(a), which states that an individual with a joint interest in the subject matter of an action is an indispensable party to that action. The court held that Rule 2227(a) must be construed by its plain language, enforcing that words or phrases that are expressly defined be understood in accordance with such definitions.  Relying on Black’s Law Dictionary, the Supreme Court deconstructed Rule 2227(a) and defined a “joint interest” as one “that is acquired at the same time and by the same title as another person’s.” The court also defined “subject matter” as “the issues presented for consideration; the thing in which a right or duty has been asserted; the thing in dispute.” Using these definitions, the court construed the meaning of Rule 2227(a) to find indispensable parties as those who have the same interest in the issues presented in an action. The court reasoned that the subject matter in a premises liability action is the liability of a possessor of property for the injuries a party has sustained as a result of a hazardous condition on that property. The court held that liability stems from the possession and control of the property, not the ownership. Applying the plain language construction of Rule 2227(a) to premises liability actions, the court ruled that a party is indispensable to a premises liability action when that party has a joint interest in the possession and control of the premises at issue. Given its holdings, the Supreme Court declined to extend the rule set forth in Minner v. Pittsburgh, 69 A.2d 384 (Pa. 1949), reasoning that the rulings in Minner—specifically, co-owners of a property are indispensable parties due to their mere ownership interests in the property—were limited to the facts of the case. The court found that liability in Minner arose from ownership of the property since it was the sole indicator of possession and control over said property.  In distinguishing Minner, the Supreme Court reasoned that the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence in the present matter arose from the defendant’s actions in possession and control of the property, as opposed to his status as a co-owner of the property. The court explained that the abundance of factual support pointed towards the defendant’s position as a sole landlord occupying the premises with intent to control its at-issue common areas.  The court further explained that, as the defendant’s brother was a tenant in common, who did not exercise any possession or control over the property, he was not an indispensable party to the plaintiff’s premises liability action. As such, the court ruled that the lower courts erred in their dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Simone signals that a premises liability case will not be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party based solely upon an argument of ownership. Instead, attorneys will need to establish that the indispensable party had joint interest in the possession and control of the property.  Nicole is a member of our Casualty Department and can be reached at (412) 803-1164 or NETsiaras@mdwcg.com.    Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.