Court Opinion

ID: 9640142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:58:50.046961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:51.678727
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the Superior Court properly reversed the trial court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Appellants because the evidence clearly supported the jury’s verdict with respect to Appellees’ defense of fraud, i.e., that Appellants fraudulently concealed the pollution at Whitmoyer. Given that Appellees demonstrated that they were not responsible for indemnifying Appellants on the basis of fraud, however, I see no need for the majority to address the merits of Appellees’ additional defenses of known loss and late notice. Lindstrom v. Corry, 563 Pa. 579, 763 A.2d 394, 395 (2000).