Maloney v. Valley Medical Facilities, Inc., 984 A.2d 478, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 2455 (Pa. 2009)

A plaintiff's release of principals whose potential liability was vicarious does not also discharge plaintiff's claims against the agent where there is an express reservation of rights against the agent.

In this medical malpractice action, the plaintiff settled with one physician and the two employers, but expressly reserved his rights to proceed against the remaining defendant-physician only. The employers and remaining physician then moved for summary judgment asserting that the release of the principal as a matter of law also released the agent, reservation of rights language to the contrary notwithstanding. The defendants relied on the common law rule governing releases that the release of an agent operates to release the principal from vicarious liability claims, regardless of any attempted reservation of rights and, also, that the release of an agent, as a matter of law, follows the release of a principal. In Maloney, the Supreme Court held that, particularly in the medical malpractice arena, an extension of an inflexible common-law rule does not advance the interests of justice. The Court held that the parties to a settlement should be afforded latitude to effectuate their express intentions and held that the plaintiff's release of principals whose potential liability was vicarious does not also discharge the plaintiff's claims against the agent where there is an express reservation of rights against the agent.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2010