Court Opinion

ID: 9640655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:11:11.481566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:31.610800
License: Public Domain

*625Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Eobebts :
I agree that the order appealed from is not interlocutory. Posternack v. American Casualty Company of Reading, 421 Pa. 21, 218 A. 2d 350 (1966).
However, I also believe Posternach indicates that the court below abused its discretion in denying appellants leave to amend. In their petition requesting leave to amend, appellants averred that they believed the written settlement agreement constituted a valid release in favor of all the alleged joint tortfeasors and was a complete bar to plaintiff’s claim. The court’s 'action denied appellants an opportunity to establish the relevancy of the agreement to the pending lawsuit.
Both the majority and the court below have concluded that the parties did not intend the settlement agreement to operate as a release. In my view this question is not so clear that it can, in the posture of the present record, be decided as a matter of law. Certainly at this juncture it is not incumbent upon appellants to prove the agreement does constitute a release nor should they be denied the opportunity of establishing its relevancy, if any. Here, as in Posternach, “the facts need enlargement on this facet of the case, and the only manner in which this can be accomplished is to permit the amendment.” 421 Pa. at 25, 218 A. 2d at 352; see generally id. at 24-26, 218 A. 2d at 351-52.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell and Mr. Justice Eagen join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.