Court Opinion

ID: 9698868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:01:52.706445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.163802
License: Public Domain

TAMILIA, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I believe the forbearance in filing a complaint was occasioned by appellees’ request to engage in a settlement process in order to avoid damage to its reputation. This appeared to be the understanding of the parties as confirmed by the conduct of appellees following an attempt by present appellate counsel to move the litigation forward. It was later in the process when appellees decided to file a motion for non pros. I would find that period from the onset of the action by praecipe to the time new counsel filed the complaint to be waived for purposes of applying Penn Piping, Inc. v. INA, 529 Pa. 350, 603 A.2d 1006 (1992). The period following the filing of the complaint involved legitimate pretrial skirmishing and should not reflect on appellants’ timeliness in pursuing their action.
The existence of a patently substantial justiciable issue which will be forfeited due to an induced delay by appellees is something the rule was not intended to permit. Any failure of appellants to proceed was matched to a greater degree by appellees’ posture of conciliation and negotiation. Whether or not Penn Piping may be applied retroactively is not relevant *586here where prejudice cannot be presumed by the delay when the party who claims prejudice produced the delay.
I would reverse and remand for trial.