The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-4040 Civil KLINGER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOSEPH J. ELWOOD and : ELWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC., : Defendant : NO. 07-4040 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and EBERT, JJ. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., December 6, 2007. In this civil case, Plaintiff alleges (a) that Defendants breached a contract with Plaintiff and (b) that Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s contractual relations with various third parties. In its complaint, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, punitive damages in connection with the claim for intentional interference with contractual 1 relations. Defendants have filed a preliminary objection to the complaint requesting that Plaintiff’s demand for punitive damages be stricken on the ground that the pleading is not 2 in conformity with law or rule of court. The matter was argued on October 3, 2007. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendants’ preliminary objection will be denied. 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed July 5, 2007. 2 Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff’s Complaint, at 3. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 The allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint may be summarized as follows. Plaintiff 4 is a professional corporation providing tax preparation services to the public. Defendants are an individual and a close corporation engaged in the provision of 5 consulting and tax preparation services. The parties entered into a contract on January 24, 2006, in which Defendants sold a client list pertaining to their tax services to 6 Plaintiff. The “crux” of the agreement obligated Defendants to forgo the right to provide tax services to anyone on the client list. Notwithstanding their contractual obligation, Defendants contacted a number of clients on the list and subsequently contracted with many of them for the provision of tax preparation services. Defendants’ actions were “willful and intentional” and caused Plaintiff to suffer, inter alia, the loss of existing and 7 potential customers. On July 30, 2007, Defendants filed a preliminary objection requesting that the court “strike all requests for punitive damages in Plaintiff’s Complaint” for failure to 8 conform to law or rule of court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). In a brief in support of the preliminary objection, Defendants argue that there are no facts alleged supporting a 9 claim for punitive damages. 3 In summarizing these allegations, the court is in no way expressing an opinion as to their veracity. 4 Plaintiff’s Complaint, paras. 1,4. 5 Plaintiff’s Complaint, paras. 2-3. 6 Plaintiff’s Complaint, para. 6. 7 Plaintiff’s Complaint, paras. 34-35. 8 Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff’s Complaint, at 3. 9 Defendants’ Brief in Support of Defendants’ Preliminary Objections, at 3. 2 DISCUSSION “A request for punitive damages does not constitute a cause of action in and of itself. Rather, a request for punitive damages is merely incidental to a cause of action.” McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania,413 Pa.Super. 128, 144, 604 A.2d 1053, 1061 (1992), (citingNix v. Temple University, 408 Pa.Super. 369, 380, 596 A.2d 1132, 1138 (1991)). As such, sustaining Defendants’ preliminary objection would not foreclose Plaintiff’s claim entirely. However, it cannot be determined at this early stage of the case, and as a matter of law, that punitive damages are not warranted. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted Section 908(2) of the Restatement nd 2 of Torts regarding punitive damages, which states that “[p]unitive damages may be awarded for [tortious] conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.” Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 363, 395- 96, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (1984) (citing Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 344, 192 A.2d 355, 358 (1963)). In a determination of whether or not to assess punitive damages, “the [tortfeasor’s] state of mind is vital. The act, or failure to act, must be intentional, reckless or malicious.” Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 363, 396, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (1984). While “simply pleading” that conduct is outrageous may not be sufficient to 10 support a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff in the present case alleges actions that a jury could reasonably find “import[] insult … and were done in contempt of 10 1 Summ. Pa. Jur. 2d Torts §9:93 (2007). 3 [P]laintiff[‘s] rights.” McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, 413 Pa.Super. 128, 144, 604 A.2d 1053, 1061 (1992) (citingGolomb v. Korus, 261 Pa. Super. 344, 347, 396 A.2d 430, 431 (1977)). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants intentionally contacted parties on the aforesaid client list in order to solicit 11 their business in direct violation of the parties’ contractual rights and obligations. If these allegations are proven by a preponderance of the evidence presented at trial, a jury could reasonably find that Defendants’ actions were committed with a state of mind exhibiting a “reckless indifference” to or “contempt of” Plaintiff’s legal rights. For the forgoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages as to the intentional interference with contractual relations claim can not be sustained, and the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 6 day of December, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants’ Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objection is denied. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. 11 Plaintiff’s Complaint, paras. 30-33. 4 Robert J. Dailey, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Rob Bleecher, Esquire 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorneys for Defendants 5 6 KLINGER & ASSOCIATES, P.C., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : CIVIL ACTION -LAW JOSEPH J. ELWOOD and : ELWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC., : Defendant : NO. 07-4040 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and EBERT, JJ. ORDER OF COURT th AND NOW, this 6 day of December, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants’ Preliminary Objection to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the preliminary objection is denied. BY THE COURT, __________________________ J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Robert J. Dailey, Esquire 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Wayne M. Pecht, Esquire Rob Bleecher, Esquire 1205 Manor Drive, Suite 200 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorneys for Defendants