J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

BONNIE CRUICKSHANK-WALLACE AND 

WILLIAM WALLACE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v.

CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND 

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY AND 

COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY AND 

JAMES S. TUPITZA, ESQUIRE AND 

TUPITZA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

No. 2403 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order July 11, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Civil Division at No(s): No. 2013-10242

BONNIE CRUICKSHANK-WALLACE AND 

WILLIAM WALLACE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v.

GERARD P. EGAN, ESQUIRE AND EGAN 

YOUNG LAW FIRM AND NEIL E. 

JOKELSON, ESQUIRE AND NEIL E. 

JOKELSON & ASSOCIATES

No. 2621 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Dated July 12, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Civil Division at No(s): No. 2013-11158

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES AND SHOGAN, JJ.
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 2 -

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Bonnie Cruickshank-Wallace (“Wife”) and William Wallace (“Husband) 

(collectively “Appellants”) appeal from orders granting summary judgment to 

the defendants and dismissing these actions. We affirm.

Both of these appeals involve the same underlying facts, so we have 

consolidated them for the sake of judicial economy. Three other lawsuits are 

pertinent to the procedural history of these matters. 

Mercantile versus Husband and Wife

In 1998, Mercantile County Bank (“Mercantile”) filed an action against 

Wife, Husband, and Husband’s company. Mercantile had loaned Husband 

and his company approximately $750,000, which was not repaid. Mercantile 

joined Wife as a party defendant based upon its position that Husband had 

made fraudulent conveyances to her that could be used to satisfy the debt 

incurred by Husband and his company. The trial court in that case concluded 

that Wife was liable to Mercantile for $20,000 in fraudulent transfers made 

to her. 

Wife versus Mercantile

Even though Mercantile had prevailed against her in the action that it 

brought, Wife thereafter filed a lawsuit against Mercantile for abuse of 

process. In that case, Wife was represented by Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, 

Branzburg, & Ellers (“Klehr”). Husband was not a party plaintiff, and 

Mercantile prevailed in the abuse of process action Wife brought against it. 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 3 -

Wife versus Klehr

Wife then instituted an action against Klehr for legal malpractice in 

connection with Klehr’s representation of her in the abuse-of-process case 

against Mercantile. Husband was not a named plaintiff in the lawsuit against 

Klehr. Klehr filed a counter-claim against Wife for unpaid legal bills. Wife 

initially was represented by Gerard P. Egan, Esquire and the Egan Young 

Law Firm (“Egan”). Egan hired Neil E. Jokelson, Esquire, of Neil E. Jokelson 

& Associates (“Jokelson”) as the expert witness in the legal malpractice suit 

against Klehr, and Mr. Jokelson issued an opinion that Klehr committed legal 

malpractice in connection with Klehr’s representation of Wife in her case 

against Mercantile. Klehr was granted summary judgment on Wife’s legal 

malpractice claim. 

After summary judgment was entered against Wife on her cause of 

action, Wife fired Egan and hired Anne DelCollo, Esquire. Ms. Delcollo 

defended Wife on the counter claim presented by Klehr, but Klehr prevailed 

and was awarded unpaid legal fees in the amount of $46,661.31. 

Wife terminated the services of Ms. DelCollo and hired James S. 

Tupitza of Tupitza and Associates PC (“Tupitza”) for purposes of appealing 

the trial court’s decisions. Tupitza did not file a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement, and Wife did not prevail in her appeal in the Klehr 

lawsuit. 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 4 -

Present Two Actions

Husband and Wife filed a legal malpractice case at civil action number 

2013-11158 against Egan and Jokelson, and they have proceeded pro se

throughout these proceedings. Even though the pleadings averred that Egan 

and Jokelson committed malpractice in connection with Wife’s case against 

Klehr, Husband and Wife maintained that they did not need the testimony of 

an expert witness to establish the merits of their case. The trial court 

granted summary judgment in favor of Egan and Jokelson. The appeal at 

2621 EDA 2016 followed. 

At civil action number 2013-10242, Husband and Wife sued Tupitza 

and three insurance companies, CNA Financial Corporation, Continental 

Casualty Company, and Columbia Casualty Company (the “Insurers”). 

Husband and Wife alleged that the Insurers were the legal malpractice 

carriers for both Tupitza and Klehr, and that the Insurers conspired to have 

Tupitza commit legal malpractice in the litigation filed by Wife against Klehr. 

The conspiracy for Tupitza to commit malpractice purportedly was formed to 

prevent Wife from prevailing against Klehr, which would have been 

detrimental to the Insurers. Husband and Wife claimed in that case that 

they did not require the testimony of an expert witness to prove that 

Insurers and Tupitza conspired for Tupitza to commit malpractice. The trial 

court concluded that an expert witness was necessary to pursue the claim of 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 5 -

legal malpractice, and it granted summary judgment to defendants therein. 

The appeal at 2403 EDA 2016 followed. 

Appeals

In the appeal involving Egan and Jokelson as Appellees, Appellants 

raise these issues:

1. Whether to REVERSE Judge Mahon 1925(b) Order (Exh. C) 

"deemed waived" the Wallaces' Concise Statement of rulings 

challenged?

2. Whether to REVERSE Judge Mahon summary judgment Order 

(Exh. A) "claims against all Defendants fail for failure to certify 

expert testimony is required" and Rule 1033 Motion to Amend 

Complaint filed April 1, 2016, is DENIED" and p 3 para. 3 " Mr. 

Wallace has no legitimate interest in the suits brought against 

Defendants Egan and Jokelson "?

3. Whether to REVERSE Judge Mahon Order (Exh. B) "all 

outstanding Motions are DENIED as moot" with regard only to 

the following motions (set forth in the 1925(b) Concise 

Statement)? and either GRANT these motions as a matter of law 

or remand these motions for first time consideration on their 

merits:

(1) 9/25/15 second motion in this case to disqualify 

Marshall Dennehey law firm for conflict of interest

and intentional spoliation of subpoenaed documents?

(2) Rule 4019 sanctions against Jokelson for 

intentional spoliation of subpoenaed documents?

(3) for summary judgment against Jokelson and 

Egan?

Appellants’ brief at 2 (2621 EDA 2016).

Appellants present these averments as to the disposition of their 

lawsuit against Tupitza and the Insurers: 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 6 -

1. Whether to REVERSE Judge Mahon 1925 (b) Order (Exh. D) 

"deemed waived" the Wallaces' Concise Statement of rulings 

challenged?

2. Whether to REVERSE Judge Mahon summary judgment Order 

(Exh. A) "claims against all Defendants fail for failure to certify 

expert testimony is required?

3. Whether to REVERSE Judge Mahon Order (Exh. B) "all 

outstanding Motions are DENIED as moot" with regard only to 

the following motions (set forth in the 1925(b) Concise 

Statement)? and either GRANT these motions as a matter of law 

or remand these motions for first time consideration on their 

merits:

(1) Pa.R.C.P. 1033 amend their 2d Amended 

Complaint?

(2) reconsideration of Judge Cody Order (Exh. C) 

sustaining CNAF preliminary objection regarding 

jurisdiction of CNAF?

(3) Rule 4019 sanctions against Tupitza for 

intentional spoliation of subpoenaed documents? and 

summary judgment motion against Tupitza?

(4) Rule 4019 sanctions against Continental 

/Columbia for repeated refusal to be Rules 4007.1(e) 

deposed re. 4007.1(d)(1) requested documents? and 

summary judgment motion against the three CNA 

Defendants?

(5) 9/25/15 second motion in this case to disqualify 

Marshall Dennehey for a conflict of interest as well as 

intentional spoliation of subpoenaed documents?

Appellants’ brief at 2 (2403 EDA 2016). 

The crucial positions of Appellees, Egan, Jokelson, Tupitza, and 

Insurers, in these appeals are identical. First, Appellees argue that 

Appellants waived all their issues by filing an impermissibly vague Pa.R.A.P. 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 7 -

1925(b) statement. Appellees alternatively maintain that summary 

judgment was properly granted in these cases as Appellants needed the 

opinion of an expert witness to prevail. 

Even though the trial court herein concluded that Appellants’ Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement was too vague and confusing, we decline to find waiver 

and prefer to address the merits of the trial court’s decision to grant 

summary judgment in these actions. While Appellants present prolix and 

confusing argument on the pertinent issues, we agree with Appellees that 

the dispositive issue herein is whether Appellants are correct in their 

assertion that they do not need expert testimony in order to establish the 

merits of their claims in these lawsuits. We conclude that, absent expert 

testimony, Appellants cannot establish the merits of their legal malpractice 

claims. We therefore affirm. 

This Court may overturn an order granting summary judgment if the 

appealing party establishes that the court either committed an error of law 

or abused its discretion. Finder v. Crawford, 2017 PA Super 210, 2017 WL 

28740492017 (filed July 6, 2017) (citation omitted).

 In evaluating the trial court's decision to enter summary 

judgment, we focus on the legal standard articulated in the 

summary judgment rule. See Pa.R.C.P., Rule 1035.2. The rule 

states that where there is no genuine issue of material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law, 

summary judgment may be entered. Where the nonmoving 

party bears the burden of proof on an issue, he may not merely 

rely on his pleadings or answers in order to survive summary 

judgment. Failure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 8 -

evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears 

the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving 

party to judgment as a matter of law. Lastly, we will review the 

record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and 

all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact 

must be resolved against the moving party.

Id. (citation omitted). 

In their case against Egan and Jokelson, Appellants averred that those 

defendants committed malpractice in connection with activities in Wife’s case 

against Klehr. As to the lawsuit with Tupitza and Insurers as defendants, 

Appellants alleged that Insurers and Tupitza conspired for Tupitza to commit 

legal malpractice so that Wife could not prevail against Klehr in Wife’s legal 

malpractice case against Klehr. As we articulated in Sokolsky v. Eidelman, 

93 A.3d 858, 862 (Pa.Super. 2014) (citation omitted), “a legal malpractice 

action in Pennsylvania requires the plaintiff to prove that she had a viable 

cause of action against the party she wished to sue in the underlying case 

and that the attorney she hired was negligent in prosecuting or defending 

that underlying case (often referred to as proving a ‘case within a case’).” 

Accordingly, Appellants must satisfy the following tripartite test: “1) 

Employment of the attorney or other basis for a duty; 2) the failure of the 

attorney to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge; and 3) that such 

negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff.” Id. 

(emphasis added). 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 9 -

In both of these cases, Appellants have consistently and adamantly 

maintained that they do not need an expert witness. Our Supreme Court 

observed in Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58, 66 (Pa. 1989), “expert 

testimony is essential” in a case involving breach of a standard of care when 

the question of whether the defendant failed to exercise ordinary skill and 

knowledge is beyond the knowledge of the average person. Only when the 

issue is simple and the lack of skill is obvious can a plaintiff dispense with an 

expert opinion to establish malpractice. Id. Essentially, the lack of skill 

rendered by a professional must be self-evident or a plaintiff’s failure to 

adduce expert testimony is fatal to his case. See Vazquez v. CHS Prof'l 

Practice, P.C., 39 A.3d 395 (Pa.Super. 2012).

In their appeals, Appellants fail to even delineate how the performance 

of Egan and Jokelson was substandard in the matter of Wife against Klehr. 

Thus, Appellants have not proven that breach of the applicable standard by 

Egan and Jokelson was so obvious that an ordinary layperson would 

understand that they exercised a lack of ordinary skill. As to Insurers and 

Tupitza, the malpractice concerned Tupitza’s failure to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement. A layperson would not know what a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

statement is, nor would they understand its legal significance. Thus, 

whether Tupitza committed malpractice when he did not file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement would not be obvious to an ordinary person, and expert 

testimony on that issue is required. We recognize that Appellants averred 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 10 -

the existence of a conspiracy among Insurers and Tupitza, but the supposed 

object of that conspiracy nevertheless was for Tupitza to commit 

malpractice. Hence, whether Tupitza deviated from the applicable 

professional standard of care remains an element of their case.

We also observe that Appellants have completely overlooked that they 

must prove the merits of their case within a case, which was outlined in 

Heldring v. Lundy Beldecos & Milby, P.C., 151 A.3d 634, 641–42 

(Pa.Super. 2016), noting that a “legal malpractice action is distinctly 

different from any other type of lawsuit brought in the Commonwealth . . . 

because a plaintiff must prove a case within a case[.]” Specifically, the 

plaintiff averring legal malpractice must “establish by a preponderance of the 

evidence that he would have recovered a judgment in the underlying 

action.” Id. at 641-42. Therefore, “only after the plaintiff proves he would 

have recovered a judgment in the underlying action” can the plaintiff 

“proceed with proof that the attorney he engaged to prosecute or defend the 

underlying action was negligent in the handling of the underlying action and 

that negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's loss since it 

prevented the plaintiff from being properly compensated for his loss.” Id. at 

642. 

Appellants wholly overlook that they must establish in these lawsuits 

that Klehr committed malpractice and that they would have prevailed in their 

abuse of process case against Mercantile if Klehr had not deviated from the 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 11 -

applicable standard of care. Appellants were required to present expert 

testimony to establish that Klehr improperly litigated Wife’s case against 

Mercantile and that Wife would have prevailed against Mercantile absent 

Klehr’s deficit performance. Simply put, Appellants needed the opinion of an 

expert witness in their case within a case. 

Appellants’ argument is identical in these two appeals. Their first 

position is that their cases are not premised upon malpractice but an 

intentional tort committed by the Appellees herein, which obviates the need 

for expert testimony. Appellants’ brief at 17 (2403 EDA 2016); Appellants’ 

brief at 18 (2621 EDA 2016). First, Appellants mischaracterize their lawsuits. 

The torts averred require them to prove that the defaults committed by 

Klehr in the abuse-of-process case caused Wife to lose, and that Appellees’ 

actions in the legal malpractice case against Klehr resulted in Wife’s loss in 

that case, where she would have prevailed absent the activities of Appellees. 

The lawsuits at issue in these appeals do not involve intentional torts. 

In support of this proposition, Appellants rely upon Smith v. Griffiths, 

476 A.2d 22 (Pa.Super. 1984), which does not advance their cause. 

Therein, Smith filed a lawsuit against Griffiths, who was representing Smith’s 

wife in a marital case. Smith averred that Griffiths defamed him in 

connection with averments made in the marital case and that Griffiths 

caused injury to Smith by giving incorrect legal advice to Smith’s wife. 

Griffiths filed preliminary objections, which were granted. We concluded 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 12 -

that anything stated by Griffiths in the divorce case as to Smith was 

protected by an absolute privilege; hence, Smith did not have a cause of 

action for defamation. We upheld the dismissal of the averments regarding 

legal advice given to Smith’s wife on the basis that Griffiths owed no duty to 

Smith in connection with the legal counsel given to Smith’s wife. The case in 

question did not discuss, to any extent, the need for expert testimony for 

intentional torts. 

Appellants also assert that their lawsuits do not contain professional 

negligence claims, but allege “intentional misrepresentation,” which “does 

not set forth a professional liability claim, and “promissory esttoppel [sic],” 

which also is not a position that Appellees deviated from an acceptable 

professional standard. Appellants’ brief at 17 (2403 EDA 2016); Appellants’ 

brief at 18 (2621 EDA 2016). 

We reject Appellants’ position that their complaints set forth viable 

causes of action for intentional misrepresentation or promissory estoppel. 

Appellants did not offer a single statement or promise made by Appellees to 

support their suggestion that these two actions involve intentional 

misrepresentation or promissory estoppel. They violated Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) 

by cursorily asserting intentional misrepresentation and promissory estoppel 

causes of action but not setting forth the “material facts on which [their] 

cause of action” was based. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) (“The material facts on which 

a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 13 -

summary form.”) “Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading state; a complaint must 

not only give the defendant notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests, but the complaint must also formulate the 

issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim.” Lerner v. 

Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1235 (Pa.Super. 2008). Appellants’ complaints did 

not contain causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and 

promissory estoppel because they failed to aver the specific facts essential 

to support those claims. Likewise, on appeal, Appellants fail to delineate any 

statement or promise made by any Appellee that would constitute an 

intentional misrepresentation or support a cause of action for promissory 

estoppel. The present cases are straightforward legal malpractice cases. 

Cf. Krauss v. Claar, 879 A.2d 302 (Pa.Super. 2005) (claims against 

attorney did not constitute professional liability claims).

Finally, Appellants suggest that when the “claim is for ‘negligence 

rising to the level of gross incompetence’ no expert testimony is required.” 

Appellants’ brief at 17 (2403 EDA 2016); Appellants’ brief at 18 (2621 EDA 

2016). Appellants cite Smith v. Yohe, 194 A.2d 167 (Pa. 1963), involving 

the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which applies when the negligence is 

obvious and speaks for itself. We have delineated above that the 

malpractice in these lawsuits is not so obvious that an ordinary layperson 

would be able to ascertain that the Appellees committed malpractice. 

Appellants did not even assert what Egan and Jokelson did that would 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 14 -

constitute such an obvious deviation from the standard of care that expert 

testimony was unnecessary. A layperson would not be able to ascertain that 

Tupitza’s action was obviously a breach of the applicable standard of care. 

Additionally, Appellants do not advance how Klehr’s deficient performance in 

the abuse-of-process case against Mercantile was so obvious that an 

ordinary person would understand that Klehr deviated from the applicable 

standard of care and that Wife would have prevailed against Mercantile 

absent Klehr’s malpractice. We thus reject Appellants’ position that they do 

not need the testimony of an expert witness in these actions to establish the 

merits of their cases, and we affirm the trial court’s decision to grant 

summary judgment to the Appellees herein. 

Appellants also suggest that they should be afforded the opportunity 

to amend their complaints. We set forth in Hill v. Ofalt, 85 A.3d 540, 557 

(Pa.Super. 2014), that “the right to amend should not be withheld where 

there is some reasonable possibility that amendment can be accomplished 

successfully.” In the present case, Appellants wholly fail to delineate how 

they could have amended their complaints to successfully assert a cause of 

action. Appellants’ brief at 14-15 (2403 EDA 2016); Appellant’s brief at 15-

16 (2621 EDA 2016). They merely block quote principles applicable in the 

summary judgment context to amendment of complaints. Since Appellants 

do not set forth how there was a reasonable possibility, absent expert 
J-A14022-17

J-A14023-17

- 15 -

testimony, that amendment would have enabled them to set forth a viable 

cause of action, we decline to grant them the opportunity to amend. 

As these actions were properly dismissed due to Appellants’ insistence 

that they can proceed without an expert opinion, Appellants’ remaining 

issues are moot. 

Orders affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/25/2017