Court Opinion

ID: 9766174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:35:55.450232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:20.029709
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In Spencer v. Pavlik, 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 427, 590 A.2d 1342 (1991) this Court stated:
[Ojnee again ... this court ... address[es] the issue of when a pleading can be amended to change the designation of a party after the statute of limitations has run. This issue has been before us previously in three reported cases. In Hall v. Acme Markets, Inc., 110 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 199, 532 A.2d 894 (1987), we held that the Commonwealth is an entity distinct from the agencies and employees encompassed in the term ‘commonwealth party’ as defined in the immunity statute 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501. We held further that only commonwealth parties may be sued for damages, and that pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S. § 2310 and 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(a) the Commonwealth itself is absolutely immune from suit. In Hall we permitted the amendment of the complaint because DOT had been involved in all aspects of the litigation from its inception: the Secretary of DOT had been named in the original complaint.
The second case where we addressed this issue was Bainbridge v. Department of Transportation, 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. *522406, 557 A.2d 456 (1989). In Bainbridge the plaintiffs ... filed a trespass action against the township [Mt. Pocono], the Commonwealth and the campsite [Pocono Mountain Campsites]. The Commonwealth filed preliminary objections ... on the basis that the complaint did not name a commonwealth party and that the Commonwealth was absolutely immune from suit. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint which named DOT as a defendant in place of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth filed preliminary objections on behalf of DOT alleging that DOT was a new and distinct party and that the statute of limitations had run before the amended complaint had been filed. We held that DOT was a distinct party ... [and that] naming DOT 'as a party, after the running of the statute of limitations, was not the correction of a technical defect, and would be prejudicial to DOT.
Finally, in Garcia v. Commonwealth, 131 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 327, 570 A.2d 137 (1990) ... [t]he plaintiff filed her complaint [and] identified the party in the caption as the Commonwealth, and within the body of the complaint as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General. The Commonwealth filed an answer and new matter raising the defense of sovereign immunity, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that it was not a proper party.... The plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint to substitute DOT for the Commonwealth and to preclude DOT from raising the statute of limitations as a defense. The trial court ... granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint by substituting DOT for the Commonwealth....
We reversed the order of the trial court, holding that ... DOT’s response to a request for information from DGS was not participation in litigation as in Hall, to permit substitution of parties.
In the instant matter ... [t]he mere reference to a separate and distinct party in a motion, body of a pleading, or ad damnum clause, is a matter of law insufficient to make that party a participant in the action. The rules of civil procedure require that the party be named in the caption, and the failure to so name a party is not a mere technical error that can be corrected after the statute of limitations has run. (footnotes omitted and emphasis added).
Spencer, 590 A.2d at 1344-46.
In the present controversy, I believe that the majority’s decision to allow the Executors to amend the caption in order to name a Commonwealth party after the statute of limitations has run is tantamount to the substitution of a new party and not merely a correction of the caption. I would affirm the order of the trial court pursuant to this Court’s decisions in Spencer; Garcia; Bainbridge; and Gitto v. Plumstead Township, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 668, 634 A.2d 683 (1993)1 and dismiss the complaint.
LEADBETTER, J., joins in this dissent.

. In Gitto this Court concluded that the failure to name a Commonwealth party in the caption of Thomas Gitto (Gitto) prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations was "fatal to Gitto’s claim.” Id. 634 A.2d at 686.