Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-123 CivilGIL S. PAK and AMY L. PAK, Husband and wife V. EJB MOTORS, INC., t/a BRENNER NISSAN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2002-0123 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., GUIDO, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Plaintiffs commenced this action by complaint filed on January 9, 2002. On August 14, 2003, they filed a motion to amend their original complaint. The amendment seeks to add three additional counts. Defendant has objected to the motion. Both parties have briefed and argued their respective positions. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. FACTUAL BACKGROUND We will start with a recitation of the facts as alleged in the original complaint. The defendant is engaged in the business of selling and servicing automobiles. ~ On March 27, 1999, the plaintiffs purchased a used 1998 Nissan Maxima for $23,000.2 The defendant represented "that the car was a demonstration car from New York.''3 In the months after the purchase plaintiffs experienced many problems with the vehicle and questioned defendant "regarding the true mileage, or true condition of the automobile.''4 Complaint, para. 2. Complaint, para. 3, 5. Complaint, para. 10. Complaint, para. 10. NO. 2002-0123 CIVIL TERM They were assured that the car was as originally represented, i.e. "a demonstration car from New York.''5 On July 30, 2001 the plaintiffs obtained a report from "Carfax.com" which disclosed that the vehicle had been "totaled for salvage value in New York.''6 The original complaint contained four counts, T) breach of contract, TT) negligent misrepresentation, TTT) fraud, and IV) violation of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Act (73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq). The amended complaint proposes to add three additional counts: V) breach of expressed warranty; VI) breach of implied warranty of marketability and VII) breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.? DISCUSSION "Generally, amendments to pleadings are liberally granted." Stoppie v. dohns, 720 A.2d 808, 809 (Pa. Comwlth. 1998). The issue is governed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 which provides in relevant part: A party, either by filed consent of the adverse party or by leave of court, may at any time change the form of action, correct the name of a party or amend his pleading. The amended pleading may aver transactions or occurrences which have happened before or after the filing of the original pleading, even though they give rise to a new cause of action or defense. "However, an amendment will not be allowed after the statute of limitations has expired if it introduces a new cause of action." American Motorists Insurance, Co. v. Farmers Bankand Trust Co., 435 Pa. Super. 54, 644 A.2d 1232, at 1234-1235. The claims contained in the counts sought to be added by plaintiffs are governed by a four year Statute of Limitations. Consequently, the statute expired on March 27, Complaint, para. t0. Complaint, para. 12. The additional Counts are based upon the Uniform Commercial Code, 13 Pa. C.S.A. § tOt, et seq. NO. 2002-0123 CIVIL TERM 2003, four years from the delivery date of March 27, 1999.8 Since the motion to amend was filed in August of 2003, the determining issue is whether the proposed amendments introduce new causes of action. Our appellate Courts have recognized that "(t)he phrase 'cause of action' defies succinct definition." Shaffer v. Pe,,sy/va, ia Assigned C/aims P/ax, 3 59 Pa. Super. 23 8, 252, 518 A.2d 1213, 1220 (1986). The Shaffer Court went on to state: In the context of amended pleadings, an amendment has generally been deemed to have stated a new cause of action if the amendment rests on a different theory, basis for recovery, or relationship between the parties than did the original pleading. 518 A.2d at 1221. In the instant case we find that the claim for breach of express warranty contained in the proposed Count V is not a "new cause of action." The theory of liability, basis for recovery and relationship between the parties is the same as in the breach of contract claim raised in Count I. In each count recovery is based upon the defendant having sold the plaintiffs a vehicle that was "salvaged" rather than a "demonstrator" as expressly stated. Since Count V serves only to "amplify or enlarge the existing cause of action" raised in Count I, it should be permitted. See Shaffer, supra, 518 A.2d 1220 quoting from Sa, chez v. City of Philadelphia, 302 PaSuper. 184, 185,448 A.2d 588, 589 (1982). 8 See 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2725. As the Superior Court stated in Patton v. Mack Trucks, Inc: In the usual case under Section 2725, a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues when the seller tenders delivery to the buyer. An aggrieved party must bring suit within four years of tender regardless of whether he or she knows that a breach has occurred. The last sentence of Subsection 2725(b), however, extends the period of limitations in those few cases that meet the stated twofold test. If (1) the warranty "explicitly extends" to future performance of the goods and (2) discovery of the breach must await future performance, the cause of action accrues when "the breach is or should have been discovered." We have cautioned that an extension of the usual period "will not be permitted except in those instances in which there is a clear and unambiguous expression of an intent that the warranty shall pertain to future performance." Ranker v. Skyline Corp., 342 Pa. Super. 510, 515, 493 A.2d 706, 709 (1985). 360 Pa. Super 1, 5-6, 519 A.2d 959, 962 (1986). In this case there is no allegation that the warranties at issue "explicitly" extend to future performance. NO. 2002-0123 CIVIL TERM The causes of action asserted in plaintiffs proposed Counts VI and VII are more problematic. The original complaint was based upon the express representations made by defendant with regard to the vehicle being sold. Counts VI and VII seek to impose liability based upon "implied warranties". Since the original complaint makes no mention of such implied warranties, these counts change both the theory of liability and the basis for recovery. As such, they are new causes of action and will not be permitted. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15TM day of APRIL, 2004, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion Plaintiffs' Motion to File an Amended Complaint will be granted in part and denied in part. It is GRANTED insofar as they are given leave to add proposed Count V "Breach of Expressed Warranty." It is DENIED as it relates to proposed Count VI, "Breach of Implied Warranty of Market Ability and Count VII, "Breach of Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose." By the Court, /s/Edward E. Guido Edward E. Guido, J. Anthony T. McBeth, Esquire 407 North Front Street, First Floor Harrisburg, Pa 17101 Lawrence R. Wieder, Esquire 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108-1166 NO. 2002-0123 CIVIL TERM :sld