Today the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a Lower Court decision not to set aside a jury verdict based upon the Defendant being a "Statutory Employer" under the Pensylvania Workers Compensation Act. As background, the Defendant rasied the defense of the Statutory Employer in their answer and new matter. However, they never rasied the issue again until post trial motions after the entry of a jury verdict in an amount in excess of 2 million dollars. The Lower Court found that the Defendant waived the argument since they did not present evidence that they were a statutory employer at the time of trial.
On appeal the Pa Superior Court found:
- The Defendant did not waive the Statutory Employer Immunity;
- There was no conflict between Pennsylvania and Delaware law;
- That Pennsylvania law applied to the assertion of the statutory Employer Immunity;
- That Appellant/Defendant was entitled to JNOV by way of the Statutory Employer Immunity
What is amazing about this case is that there was no mention or the Statutory Employer Immunity at trial nor was a Motion for Summary Judgment filed. The Court on appeal noted that the issue as to whether the Defendant was a statutory employer was a question of law. So why didn't the Defendant seek summary judgment, a judgment of non pros or a directed verdict? Why did they proceed with a trial when this issue could have been decided by the Court?
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
