HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0256 Civil
CHARLES HOLLENBACH and
DIANNA L. HOLLENBACH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
MARCUS MCKNIGHT, ESQUIRE: NO. 2003 - 0256 CIVIL TERM
And IRWIN MCKNIGHT AND
HUGHES CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
BEFORE OLEK GUIDO, JJ.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
day of JUNE, 2005, Defendants' Preliminary
Objections are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. They are granted insofar as the
claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED. In all other respects, the preliminary
objections are DENIED.
By the Court,
Edward E. Guido, 1.
Kevin William Gibson, Esquire
200 East State Street
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
Jeffrey B. Albert, Esquire
1700 Market Street, Suite 3000
Phila., Pa. 19103-3930
:sld
NO. 2003 - 0256 CIVIL TERM
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
The instant legal malpractice action is based upon defendants' alleged failure to
timely prosecute an action against Texaco Oil Company on behalf of plaintiffs. Currently
before us are defendants' Preliminary Objections to plaintiffs Second Amended
Complaint. We have reviewed the relevant pleadings as well as the briefs filed by the
parties, and have heard argument on the issues. We are satisfied that all of the objections,
except one, are without merit. Consequently, they will be dismissed without further
discussion. However, for the reasons hereinafter set forth, the preliminary objection
asking for the dismissal of the claim for punitive damages will be granted.
Plaintiffs contend that punitive damages would have been recoverable against
Texaco because of its outrageous conduct. They argue that they should be able to recover
from defendants all that they could have recovered from Texaco. Defendants counter that
punitive damages are not recoverable in a legal malpractice action where the claim is
based upon the conduct of a party in the underlying case.
The question before us appears to be one of first impression in this
Commonwealth. There is a split of authority among the jurisdictions that have addressed
the issue. The primary rationale for permitting recovery seems to be that if punitive
damages would have been recoverable in the underlying case, the plaintiff can be made
whole only if they are recoverable in the legal malpractice action. See Tri - G, Inc. v.
Burke, 817 N.E. 2d 1230, 1259 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). The other view is that compensatory
damages alone are sufficient to make the plaintiff whole. See Ferguson v. Leif.!, 69 P. 3d
965 (Cal. 2003).
2
NO. 2003 - 0256 CIVIL TERM
Based upon the recognized purposes of punitive damages in Pennsylvania, we
conclude that defendants' position is the correct one. The "function of punitive damages
is to deter and punish egregious behavior." Martin v. Johns - Manville, Corp. 508 Pa.
154, 169,494 A.2d 1088, 1096 (1985) (citations omitted). Thus, in this Commonwealth
the only recognized policy objectives for punitive damages are "punishment and
deterrence of the tortfeasor." GJD. by GJD. v. Johnson, 552 Pa. 169, 713 A.2d 1127,
1129 (1998).
Neither of the above policy objectives would be accomplished by allowing
recovery of lost punitive damages in a legal malpractice action. In the instant case the
egregious behavior was committed by Texaco, not the defendants. Imposing liability for
punitive damages upon the defendants would neither punish Texaco nor deter anyone else
from committing similar misconduct in the future.
Since punishment and deterrence are the only proper purposes to be served by
punitive damages, it follows that they are not meant to compensate the injured party. As
our Supreme Court stated in GJD. supra; "Punitive damages are not awarded as
additional compensation but are purely penal in nature." 713 A.2d at 1129. Since they
are based upon the defendant's conduct, not the plaintiff s loss, punitive damages are in
effect a "windfall" to which the plaintiff, by definition, has no entitlement. See Piscitelli
v. Friedenberg, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 88, 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). Therefore, the recovery
of lost punitive damages is not necessary to make the successful plaintiff whole in a legal
malpractice suit.
ORDER OF COURT
3
NO. 2003 - 0256 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this
day of JUNE, 2005, Defendants' Preliminary
Objections are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. They are granted insofar as the
claim for punitive damages is DISMISSED. In all other respects, the preliminary
objections are DENIED.
By the Court,
Isl Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, 1.
Kevin William Gibson, Esquire
200 East State Street
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
Jeffrey B. Albert, Esquire
1700 Market Street, Suite 3000
Phila., Pa. 19103-3930
:sld
4