42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524

Section 5524’s two-year limitation period does not govern a claim for a latent defect in construction; the four-year period applies.

Francabandera v. Indian Mountain Lake Development Corp. · filed 1988-10-21

Therefore, we conclude that the four-year statute of limitations is applicable to the case at bar involving a claim for a latent defect in construction and the arguments of both parties for a shorter or longer period of limitations are without merit.

Section 5524’s limitations period for § 1983 claims is tolled while a prisoner exhausts required administrative remedies.

Buttolph v. Primecare Medical Inc · filed 2018-09-19

... we held that Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations is tolled “while a prisoner exhausts administrative remedies” as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Id. at 603. The District Court did not consider Pearson or Buttolph’s allegation regarding exhaustion. It thus erred in dismissing the complaint as facially time-barred.

Section 5524(7) gives state constitutional damages claims a two-year filing period; filing a grievance did not toll that period here.

Storch v. Miller · filed 1991-01-23(7)

Both parties agree that the two year statute of limitations at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7)1 applies to the officers’ state constitutional claims, but the officers allege that the statute of limitations was tolled because they had filed a grievance. ... The officers’ contention that the statutes of limitations were tolled because they filed a grievance cannot be supported. ... For this reason, the officers’ state constitutional claims are barred by the two year statute of limitations and their claim for breach of the collective bargaining agreement is barred by the four year statute of limitations.

Section 5524’s two year limitations period for the applicable state tort claims is not tolled while a related discrimination charge is pending before the PHRC or EEOC.

Mincin v. Shaw Packing Co. · filed 1997-12-30(1), (7)

... I predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not toll the statute of limitations for related state tort claims because of the pendency of a discrimination charge before the PHRC/EEOC.

Section 5524(7) applies to tortious conduct; a negligent appraisal claim based solely on duties created by an agreement is governed by the contract limitations period.

Sadtler v. Jackson-Cross Co. · filed 1991-01-31(7)

The statute of limitations applicable to the instant action is found in the judicial Code at either 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7) or 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(3). ... The failure to make a competent and accurate appraisal, therefore, was a violation of a duty imposed by the contract between the parties and was not based upon separate principles of tort law. The appraiser’s negligent failure to perform according to the terms of the contract, if such was the case, constituted a breach of contract. We conclude, therefore, that appellants’ cause of action sounds in contract and must be governed by the statute of limitations applicable to contract actions.

Section 5524(7) gives tort claims a two-year limitation period even when the duties at issue arose from a contractual relationship.

Gustine Uniontown Associates Ltd. v. Anthony Crane Rental Inc. · filed 2000-07-18(7)

The plaintiff who is able to look to tort law to expand the defendant’s duties and/or to utilize tort remedies cannot at the same time state that the longer limitation period governing contract actions should apply to the tort claims.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year limitation does not apply to Procurement Code penalty and attorney’s fee claims, which are additional damages on a contractual claim.

Mastercraft Woodworking Co. v. Jim Lagana Plumbing & Heating Inc. · filed 2009-07-27(7)

We also find that the penalty and attorney’s fees provisions of the Procurement Code do not provide a separate claim under tort, but allow additional damages on a contractual claim initiated under its provisions. Accordingly, the statute of limitations for a breach of contract, four years, under 42 Pa.C.S. §5525, applies to Counts V and X of the second amended complaint.

Section 5524(7) provides a two-year limitation period for negligent misrepresentation claims and permits equitable tolling while a plaintiff is unaware of the alleged fraud.

In Re Chambers Development Securities Litigation · filed 1994-02-23(7)

Although the federal limitations period absolutely reposes claims filed more than three years from the date of .the actual violation, and therefore does not recognize the principle of equitable tolling during a period in which a plaintiff was unaware of the securities fraud, the Pennsylvania two-year statute of limitations applicable to common law negligent misrepresentation in the business context, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7), does recognize equitable tolling in such circumstances.

Section 5524(6)’s two-year limitation period may be tolled through equitable estoppel when the defendant’s conduct causes claimants to delay suit.

Simmons v. Snider · filed 1994-06-28(6)

Because of the particular facts of this case and the obvious inequity of limiting the class members’ remedy, we hold that the statute of limitations is tolled from March 1, 1975, the effective date of the compact, to August, 1983, two years before this suit.

Section 5524’s two-year limitations period is not tolled by fraudulent concealment unless the plaintiff justifiably relied on an affirmative independent act of concealment.

Harris v. Diocese of Scranton · filed 2006-04-19

Harris has simply not alleged facts which are sufficient to constitute an affirmative independent act of concealment upon which Harris justifiably relied until the 21st Century. Based upon the fraudulent concealment test enunciated in Meehan, Baselice and Aquilino, it is clear and free from doubt that Harris’ claims against the Diocesan defendants are barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 5524’s two-year limitation is not tolled by fraudulent concealment without an affirmative act of concealment on which the plaintiff relied in delaying suit.

Delaney v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia · filed 2007-05-08

Herein, consistent with Meehan, we find that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not toll the statute of limitations. ... With the systematic conduct alleged by Appellant failing to constitute an affirmative act for purposes of the fraudulent concealment exception, and Appellant’s failure to show that he relied upon any affirmative act of concealment by Appel-lees which caused him to forego pursuit of his causes of action, we shall affirm the judgment in favor of Appellees.

Section 5524 sets a two-year limit for wrongful death and survival actions, but fraudulent concealment can estop a defendant from invoking it.

Krapf v. St. Luke's Hospital · filed 2010-07-27

Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524, the statute of limitations for a wrongful death and survival action is two years, and in each of the cases before us, the statute of limitations had run prior to the institution of suit. ... Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Appellees, as we are required to do, we conclude Appellees have established by clear, precise, and convincing facts the doctrine of fraudulent concealment such that the invocation of the statute of limitations is estopped.

Section 5524 gives plaintiffs two years to file a negligence-based personal injury action; an insurer’s routine correspondence and silence about the defendant’s death do not toll that period.

Kelleh v. Leuthy · filed 2013-04-08

Plaintiffs then filed their complaint against defendant on December 18, 2012, eleven days before the statute of limitations ran. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524 (negligence-based personal injury lawsuits must be filed within two years of *364the incident that generated the alleged injuries). ... As such, there was no basis for this court to toll the statute of limitations, thus necessitating this court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ suit against defendant and denial of plaintiffs’ request to file a new complaint against defendant’s estate.

Section 5524(7) sets a two-year limit for tort claims; equitable tolling can prevent that limit from barring claims when the plaintiff diligently pursued facts withheld by the defendant.

400 Walnut Associates, L.P. v. 4th Walnut Associates L.P. (In re 400 Walnut Associates, L.P.) · filed 2014-03-12(7)

Pennsylvania law provides for a two year statute of limitations applicable to tort claims. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(7). ... So far from portraying the Debtor as having slept on its rights, the amendment alleges that it acted with dispatch when it learned of tortious conduct. The statute of limitations, then, provides no bar to the Plaintiffs’ tort claims.

Section 5524(2)’s two-year limitation is not tolled to add a new defendant when no one actively concealed the proper defendant’s identity.

Lapenz, P. v. Brink, J. · filed 2017-09-29(2)

Here, Appellants’ motion to amend the complaint sought to add a new, distinct party, and thus could be granted only if there was active concealment that tolled the statute of limitations. See Ferraro, 777 A.2d at 1134-35; Diaz, 841 A.2d at 549. The record reflects, however, that there was no active concealment by Justin, Appellees, or Erie.

Section 5524(7)'s two-year period for fraud claims is not tolled by a later promise to perform when the defendant does not conceal the alleged breach.

Campbell, J. v. Dreger, A. v. Campbell, C. · filed 2019-06-07(7)

The fact that he said he would make good on the promise in the future – i.e., after Andrew paid James in full – likewise did not hide the alleged breach or toll the statute of limitations.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year period for personal injury claims is not tolled by alleged concealment of a defendant’s identity when the plaintiff already knew that identity.

Fick, T. v. Barbon, B. · filed 2020-05-29(7)

Appellant references this Court’s holding that “the statute of limitations is tolled where a defendant actively conceals the identity of the party against whom a plaintiff intends to bring a cause of action.” Lafferty v. Alan Wexler Agency, Inc., 574 A.2d 671, 672 (Pa. Super. 1990). In this case, however, the record belies Appellant’s claim. ... As noted above, Appellant testified that Reist provided him with his name, address, automobile insurance information, and driver’s license at the scene of the accident. ... As the record does not support Appellant’s second claim, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s first motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Section 5524(4)’s two-year limit for waste or trespass of real property does not govern private actions under the Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act.

Buttzville Corp. v. Gulf Oil Corp. · filed 1995-01-26(4)

Finally, we find it nonsensical that the General Assembly intended that an action by the Commonwealth *178must be brought within a 20 year period but that a private action would be governed by the two year statute of limitations, which is provided in 42 Pa.C.S. §5524(4) for actions for waste or trespass of real property, as the additional defendant contends. We do not believe that a two year limitation for a private action under the STSPA would protect the health, welfare and safety of Pennsylvania’s residents as folly as the General Assembly intended. For all these reasons, we conclude that the STSPA provides a 20 year statute of limitations for a private action.

Section 5524(7) imposes a two-year limitations period on private Tank Act claims because they are tort claims.

Two Rivers Terminal, L.P. v. Chevron USA, Inc. · filed 2000-03-27(7)

Since section 6021.1305(c)’s private cause of action is a tort, we must look to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7) for its statute of limitations. As noted, section 5524(7) provides a two-year statute of limitations for “[a]ny other action or proceeding to recover damages for injury to person or property which is founded on negligent, intentional, or otherwise tortious conduct or any other action or proceeding sounding in trespass .... ” A private action under section 6021.1305(c) fits this description. Hence, a two-year period of limitations applies to a private Tank Act claim.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year limit does not govern private Storage Tank Act claims because that Act permits claims beyond tortious injury to a person or property.

PBT v. Liss · filed 2002-05-29(7)

The language of section 5524(7) does not reach an owner’s use of its land in a manner that interferes with a subsequent owner’s use of the same land.

Section 5524(7) gives an employee two years to bring a claim against a union for breach of its duty of fair representation, beginning when the employee learns the union will not file a grievance or discovers the union misled them about filing one.

Casner v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees · filed 1995-05-09(7)

The two year limitation in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524 is appropriate. ... We hold that in this equity action the two year statute of limitation began to run when AFSCME informed each Petitioner it would not file their grievance against the employer, or when any Petitioner discovered that AFSCME misled them when they were informed a grievance was or would be filed.

An asbestos-related diagnosis of asymptomatic pleural thickening does not start Section 5524(2)'s limitations period for a later claim alleging physiological impairment.

Simmons v. Pacor, Inc. · filed 1996-04-04(2)

The diagnosis of asymptomatic pleural thickening has no statute of limitations ramifications regarding a claim alleging a nonmalignant physiological impairment. A plaintiff is also permitted to file a subsequent suit if and when cancer develops.

Section 5524(2) gives a plaintiff two years from discovery of an asbestos-related disease to sue for damages from that disease; discovery of an earlier, distinct disease does not start the period for the later disease.

Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc. · filed 2009-04-15(2)

An action to recover damages for a disease caused by asbestos exposure must be commenced within two (2) years of the discovery of the disease. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(2). ... Contrary to the trial court’s interpretation, we conclude Marinari permits separate causes of action for distinct diseases due to asbestos exposure.

Section 5524(8) did not establish a statute of repose for asbestos claims.

Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp. · filed 2009-10-21(8)

Indeed, had the legislature intended that asbestos exposure cases be subject to a statute of repose, it could have expressly indicated so in its enactment of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(8).

Section 5524(8)’s asbestos limitations period does not displace the construction statute of repose when an asbestos exposure claim falls under both statutes.

Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp. · filed 2014-06-26(8)

We disagree with this contention since both statutes can function without conflict. The asbestos statute of limitations applies only to those cases arising from alleged exposure to asbestos. On the other hand, the relevant statute of repose has a greater reach and involves all claims against those persons involved in the design, planning, supervision, or construction of any improvement to real property. For the most part, the statutes will operate independently of one another. On occasion though, they will overlap in asbestos exposure claims caused by improvements to real property. However, this overlap will not prevent courts from giving effect to both statutes.

Section 5524 gives a claimant two years from accrual to sue a governmental unit for unpaid money; when the parties agreed to postpone a disciplinary hearing until criminal proceedings ended, the back-pay claim accrued when those proceedings ended.

Stonehouse v. City of Pittsburgh · filed 1996-05-13

Section 5524 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524, provides that actions against a governmental unit based upon non-payment of money, must be initiated within two years of the date on which they accrue. ... Stonehouse and the City agreed to postpone the Trial Board hearing until after the criminal matter terminated; thus, Stone-house’s cause of action accrued on March 19, 1990, the date criminal proceedings ended. ... Clearly, Stonehouse’s claim was not barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

Section 5524(6)’s two-year limit for nonpayment of money by a government officer does not apply to a declaratory claim based on a municipality’s statutory and contractual duties.

B.A. D'Amour v. Lower Merion Twp. · filed 2019-08-30(6)

Section 5524(6), a two-year statute of limitations, also does not apply because Retirees did not file a complaint for the nonpayment of money by a government officer, but rather sought a declaration based upon the Township’s statutory and contractual duties.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year limit for fraud claims also bars a declaratory judgment claim based on the same fraud when the corresponding damages claim is time-barred.

Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries Ltd. Partnership · filed 1996-09-30(7)

Plaintiffs’ apparent purpose for. asserting such a “defense” here (rather than a claim for damages) is to evade the limitations period applicable to claims for fraud—two years—which applies to any “action to recover damages ... including deceit or fraud.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(7). Because an action for damages would be time-barred, plaintiffs’ corollary declaratory judgment action is also untimely.

Section 5524(7)'s two-year fraud limitations period applies to declaratory claims based on alleged fraud.

Appel v. Kaufman · filed 2010-07-29(7)

The Court now decides that ... the plaintiffs’ declaratory claims are subject to the two-year statute of limitations for fraud under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7).

Section 5524(2) and (7)'s two-year limitation does not apply to a facial constitutional challenge seeking declaratory and injunctive relief rather than damages.

C. Haveman & A. Spillane v. BPOA, State Bd. of Cosmetology of the Com. of PA · filed 2019-12-09(2), (7)

Petitioners do not seek damages for injury to person or property or even damages for a constitutional violation. Petitioners seek declaratory and injunctive relief on the question of the facial constitutionality of a statutory provision. Therefore, the two-year statute of limitations in Section 5524 does not apply, and this PO is overruled.

Section 5524(5)'s two-year limitation applies to proceedings commenced in courts, not administrative agency proceedings.

Carter v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation · filed 1997-09-23(5)

Based on these definitions, we agree with PennDot that the statute of limitations set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524 is intended only to apply to proceedings commenced in courts and not to administrative agency proceedings.

Section 5524(2)’s two-year limitations period is tolled during a continuing doctor-patient relationship until the patient becomes dissatisfied and discontinues treatment.

Rubino v. Weiss · filed 1998-11-20(2)

In cases such as the instant matter, where there is a continuing relationship between doctor and patient, it is well-settled that the two-year statute of limitations is tolled until the patient becomes dissatisfied and discontinues treatment with that doctor.

Section 5524 bars claims for payments made more than two years before the bankruptcy filing when the limitation period had already expired.

Miller v. Blatstein (In Re Main, Inc.) · filed 1999-12-07(2), (3), (7)

One legal argument advanced by the Blat-steins is that payments preceding the period two years before the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, i.e., all payments prior to September 20, 1994, are barred by limitations, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5524(2), (3), (7). ... Therefore, as to the relatively modest amount of claims which they contended are barred by limitations, the Blatsteins are correct.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year period applies to a subrogated insurer’s tort claim when condominium by-laws do not provide a basis for that claim.

Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Kidder-Friedman · filed 1999-12-15(7)

As PSMI’s suit is not specifically provided for by the by-laws of Plaza Place, PSMI is bound by the two-year statute of limitations for tort claims.

Section 5524(7)'s two-year limitation does not apply to commercial disparagement actions; the one-year limitation in Section 5523(1) governs them.

Pro Golf Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Co. · filed 2002-10-22(7)

The Superior Court determined that the two-year limitations period found in Section 5524(7) applied. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and hold that the one-year limitations period found in Section 5523(1) governs an action for commercial disparagement.

Section 5524(2)’s two-year period applies to both economic and noneconomic claims in a limited tort case; both accrue when the noneconomic claim accrues.

Osborne v. Erie Paint Co. · filed 2001-01-24(2)

In a limited tort case, where the plaintiff must meet a statutory threshold of serious bodily injury to bring a claim for noneconomic damages, all causes of action accrue on the date that the noneconomic cause of action accrued. ... The parties do not agree on the relevant basis for the two-year statute of limitation. Defendants cite to subparagraph 7 of 42 Pa.C.S. §5524 whereas plaintiff cites to subsection 2. Plaintiff is correct.

The two-year limitations period for a limited-tort plaintiff begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that the injury is serious; a factual dispute about that date can preclude summary judgment.

Varner-Mort, D. v. Kapfhammer, B. · filed 2015-01-21(2)

In any event, for purposes of this appeal, we must determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Varner-Mort knew or reasonably should have known that she sustained a serious injury within two years of the date that Appellants filed the complaint. ... Consequently, we conclude that the trial court erred by granting Kapfhammer’s motion for summary judgment.

Section 5524’s two-year limitations period is not extended by settlement negotiations when the negotiator expressly states that they cannot extend the deadline.

Wynn v. Zamper · filed 2003-06-09

Where settlement negotiations are coupled with an explicit statement that the negotiator is without authority to extend the statute of limitations, the negotiations cannot be relied on as a basis for extending the limitations period.

Section 5524(7) provides a two-year limitations period for civil actions under Pennsylvania’s anti-piracy statute.

Directv, Inc. v. Rodkey · filed 2005-02-16(7)

As noted earlier, a civil action under the Pennsylvania Anti-Piracy Statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 910, et seq.) is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See fn. 4, supra; Kingvision Pay-Per-View, 366 F.3d at 225; see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7).

Section 5524(3)’s two-year limitation does not apply to a petition for the return of property seized by a local government because the covered tort claim cannot be filed against the Commonwealth or a local government.

In Re: Return of Personal Property Appeal of: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and through Township of Upper Darby · filed 2018-03-22(3)

Section 5524(3) of the Judicial Code, which has a two-year time limitation, does not apply because such a tort claim cannot be filed “against the Commonwealth or a local government.” Allen, 59 A.3d at 680-81.

Section 5524(3) gives a person two years to bring a conversion claim involving personal property.

Allan, M. v. Allan, Y. · filed 2017-09-18(3)

Pursuant to statute, “[a]n action for taking, detaining or injuring personal property, including actions for specific recovery thereof” must be commenced within two years.

Section 5524(2) gives a motor vehicle negligence claim a two-year limitations period measured from the accident.

Weigner, D. v. Lan, Z. · filed 2019-03-04(2)

The Weigners’ claim is governed by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(2). Since the subject accident occurred on or about July 22, 2014, the two-year statute of limitations expired on or about July 22, 2016.

Section 5524(3) gives a claimant two years to bring an action to recover personal property.

Yunik, J. v. Yunik, R. · filed 2015-05-27(3)

Because his cause of action arose no later than January 2012, his current claim—filed on May 2, 2014—was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(3), and the trial court did not commit error of law in so finding.

Section 5524(3)’s two-year limit does not apply to a Rule 588 motion for return of property because the motion is a proceeding, not an action.

Commonwealth v. Allen · filed 2012-12-18(3)

A motion for return of property under Rule 588 is not an “action at law or in equity.” It is a “proceeding,” to which Section 5524(3) does not apply.

Section 5524(7) does not apply to a corporate veil-piercing claim that derives from and is inextricably linked to ERISA claims; ERISA’s limitations period controls.

Sibbet v. Presutti (In re Presutti) · filed 2015-10-09(7)

The Court finds that because Count III derives from and is inextricably linked to the causes of action alleged in the ERISA Complaint, section 5524(7) is inapplicable and the ERISA statute of limitations (section 1113) controls.

Section 5524’s two-year limitation does not apply to petitions for protective orders under the PVSVIA because they do not fall within its listed categories of actions.

K.N.B. v. M.D., Aplt. · filed 2021-09-22

Because PVSVIA actions do not fit within any of the listed actions in Section 5524, the lower courts correctly concluded that the catch-all statute of limitations applies.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year limitations period does not govern claims under the Criminal History Record Information Act; the six-year period applies.

RAMOS v. WALMART INC. · filed 2023-01-12(7)

Walmart’s proposed two-year catch-all statute of limitations for tort-related causes of action would create uncertainty as to which limitations period governs a claim until a court makes that determination. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes a six-year statute of limitations period applies to Plaintiffs’ claims under the CHRIA and therefore, denies Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and grants Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, specifically as to the statute of limitations issue.

Section 5524’s two-year limitation applies to tort claims, but does not bar a valid breach of contract claim recast as negligence under the gist of the action doctrine.

Poteat, A. v. Asteak, G. · filed 2024-03-21

An action sounding in tort is subject to a two-year statute of limitations, while a breach of contract claim is subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5524 and 5525. ... Appellant did not allege a tort claim but, rather, a valid breach of contract claim. Thus, the trial court erred in converting the breach of contract claim into a negligence claim and then dismissing the claim on the basis of the statute of limitations.

Section 5524(7)’s two-year period does not govern tort claims that depend on challenging condominium declaration amendments subject to a one-year limit.

Dana v. Lofts at 1234 Condo. Assoc. · filed 2020-03-12(7)

Thus, it is evident from the allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint that these common law tort claims, regardless of their nomenclature, stem directly from his allegations challenging the validity of the Roof Deck and Parking Space Amendments. ... Therefore, we conclude that the Trial Court properly dismissed Mr. Dana’s common law tort claims as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

Section 5524 supplies the two-year limitations period for Title II ADA claims brought in Pennsylvania.

PERRY v. 38TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT · filed 2022-07-18

In Pennsylvania, the relevant statute of limitations is two years. Id. (citing 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524). ... Thus, his ADA claims related to his criminal proceedings are time-barred.

Section 5524 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 procedural due process claims brought in Pennsylvania.

WILLIAMS v. KRASNER · filed 2024-09-12

Therefore, Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury clearly applies to Plaintiff’s claims.