Court Opinion

ID: 9756025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:03:45.940557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:14.103058
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
I have reviewed the majority opinion and the case of Szemanski (supra) upon which the majority so heavily relies. I conclude, however, that the majority’s reliance upon Szemanski is misplaced and I therefore would affirm the order of the lower court.
The additional defendant joined in Szemanski, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 2252(a), was a party who allegedly agreed, as part of a construction contract, to indemnify the original defendant against loss on the cause of action complained of by plaintiff in his original complaint.
There is no doubt that amended Rule 2252(a) has expanded the parameter whereby joinder of additional defendants is permissible. Joinder is now permitted “if the proposed additional defendant may be (1) alone liable to the plaintiff on the cause of action declared upon by the plaintiff, (2) liable over to the defendant in regard to such cause of action, (3) jointly or severally liable with the defendant to the plaintiff on such cause of action, or (4) liable to the defendant on any cause of action which he may have against the additional defendant arising out of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action is based.”
However, there are restrictions; [A]n additional defendant cannot be joined on the basis of a claim wholly unrelated to the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant . . . [jjoinder remains improper if based upon a completely extraneous cause of action, not related to the occurrences or transactions upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action is based.” Goodrich-Amram 2d, Vol. 8, § 2252(a): 5, p. 36.
*135In Szemanski, the court permitted the joinder of an express indemnitor on the theory that the original defendant’s cause of action against it, although not the same cause of action as alleged by plaintiff against the original defendant, is related to it. The court in Szemanski apparently concluded that there existed a close enough nexus between plaintiff’s cause of action against the original defendant and the original defendant’s related cause of action against the additional defendant to permit the joinder.
Analogous to the Szemanski holdings is an earlier lower court opinion from Delaware County which held:
. prior to the 1969 amendment, it was well settled that an additional defendant could not be joined on the basis of an express contractual duty to indemnify the original defendant. The reason was that a cause of action arising from an express contract of indemnity is not based upon the cause of action declared upon by the plaintiff, as required by the rule, (citations omitted)
Although no cases on point have been brought to the court’s attention, it would certainly appear that the 1969 amendment has abolished this absolute limitation. Factually, in almost every indemnification case, and certainly in the case at bar, plaintiff’s claim against defendant and defendant’s claim against his indemnifier, the additional defendant, arise out of precisely the same occurrence or series of occurrences. To deny joinder under such circumstances would be to ignore totally the 1969 amendment and the plain intent of the Supreme Court amendment. Caldearo v. County of Delaware, 50 Pa.D. & C.2d 147 (1970).
I believe that the instant case is not controlled by the Szemanski-Caldearo opinions. Here, it is not alleged that the proposed additional defendant is an express indemnitor as was the case in both Szemanski and Caldearo. Moreover, in the instant case, based upon the set of alleged operative facts, it cannot be argued that the proposed additional defendant may be alone liable to the plaintiff, liable over to the original defendant, jointly or severally liable with the *136original defendant to the plaintiff, or liable to the original defendant on any cause of action which the original defendant may have against the proposed additional defendant which arises out of the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action is founded.
I firmly believe that the original defendant’s alleged claim against the proposed additional defendant is wholly unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries against the original defendant. The proposed joinder of the additional defendant by the original defendant is, in my opinion, based upon a completely extraneous cause of action, not related to the occurrence upon which plaintiff’s cause of action against the original defendant is based.
I would, therefore, affirm the lower court’s order disallowing the joinder of the additional defendant in the case at bar.