Court rejects "mechanical approach" to application of immunity exceptions under PA Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, holds that claim against county register for failure to require posting of bond by estate's administrator, gives rise to statutory ca

This case involved a claim by an estate against the County Register and which asserted a claim for losses arising out of the first administrator's handling of the estate. The Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa.C.S. §3172 is a statutory provision which holds a register of wills accountable for Pennsylvania's bonding requirements for estate administrators and provides a remedy for an estate's beneficiaries in the event a bond was not secured when required by law. The defendant register had not obtained a bond from the first administrator. The trial court granted summary judgment to the register and held that, notwithstanding the statutory cause of action, the alleged neglect of the register did not fall within any of the eight exceptions to governmental immunity found within §8542. The court also reasoned that the register, as an employee of a local agency, was entitled to official immunity as a matter of law. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed, relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent decision in Meyer v. Community College of Beaver County, 2 A.3d 499, (Pa. 2010), which held that the statutory cause of action under the PEF Code fell outside the scope of the tort claims act and, therefore, even though such conduct did not fall within any of the exceptions, governmental immunity did not apply. Rejecting the trial court's approach to applying the exceptions to immunity as "mechanical," the court determined that the liability being asserted by the PEF Code did not require "neglect" or negligence in order to establish liability. Therefore, while not necessarily a "contract" claim, §8541 immunity did not attach to the claim. Nonetheless, the court also reasoned that, even if a statutory cause of action outside the scope of §8541 did exist, official immunity under §8546 of the Act could still apply and bar the claim. In this case, whether the register could, in good faith, have reasonably believed that his actions in not requiring the posting of a bond were authorized, even if his actions were not lawful, presented a question of material fact and which made summary judgment improper. While prior decisions on the applicability of immunity under §8541 centered on the question of whether the claim was tort-based versus contractual, the Commonwealth Court's analysis took the narrower approach that statutory causes of action which are not based on principles of negligence or neglect fall outside the general grant of immunity. This case also highlights the fact that official immunity under the Act is not dependent on whether general immunity under §8541 exists.

Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011