Case Title: Steiner, et al v. Markel, et al, Aplts (Concurring Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-163-2008] [MO: Greenspan, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT CLIFFORD L. STEINER AND BONNIE J. STEINER, Appellees v. JOHN F. MARKEL, ESQUIRE AND NIKOLAUS & HOHENADEL, LLP, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 62 MAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court dated January 3, 2008 at No. 148 MDA 2007 reversing and remanding the order dated December 21, 2006, entered on December 22, 2006 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No. CI-04-09822 ARGUED: December 2, 2008 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE TODD DECIDED: April 29, 2009 I agree with the conclusion expressed in the Majority Opinion that Appellees waived their argument with respect to trial court error in not construing their professional malpractice claim as a claim for breach of contract. Because Appellees failed to raise this argument in response to Appellants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in Appellees’ concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), it is, in my view, clearly waived. Accordingly, I would not reach the underlying question of whether a trial court indeed has a duty to discern a cause of action from the facts stated in a complaint. I, therefore, join the Majority Opinion’s analysis and conclusion only with regard to waiver.