Court Opinion

ID: 9698505
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:52:15.490281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:41.360329
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
Unlike the majority, I am satisfied that the order of the Board of Claims granting appellant relief should be sustained. Our Legislature has long given the Board of Claims broad jurisdiction to “adjust and settle claims against the Commonwealth . . ..” The Fiscal Code, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343, § 1003, 72 P.S. § 1003 (1949). As this Court observed in Lowry v. Commonwealth, 365 Pa. 474, 479, 76 A.2d 363, 366 (1950), the authority of the Board of Claims to provide redress is not limited to instances where parties have “express contracts with the Commonwealth or its agencies.” Rather, it extends to “virtually every type of claim. . . ” Here, the record demonstrates a sound exercise of discretion. Although the Board declined to award appellant lost profits on its proposed lease agreement with the Liquor Control Board, see Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, § 2402(d), as amended, 71 P.S. § 632(d) (1962), it could and did reasonably conclude that in fairness the Commonwealth should pay appellant monies appellant expended to prepare the premises for the Liquor Control Board. I would, therefore, reinstate the order of the Board of Claims.