20 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,036 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Etoll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc.
2002 Pa. Super. 347 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) Cited 644 times
Holding plaintiff's fraud claims were barred by gist of the action doctrine because the acts "arose in the course of the parties' contractual relationship" and "the fraud claims [were] inextricably intertwined with the contract claims"
Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co.
106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014) Cited 387 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the claim was not barred, in part, because it was not founded on the breach of any specific executory promise contained in the contract
Downs v. Andrews
639 F. App'x 816 (3d Cir. 2016) Cited 67 times
Finding district court focused appropriately on the nature of the duty when it found that plaintiffs alleged defendants "violated an obligation created by contract, rather than by 'the larger societal policies embodied in the law of torts'"
Builders Supply Co. v. Mccabe
366 Pa. 322 (Pa. 1951) Cited 306 times
Holding that building supply company whose employee's negligence in avoiding automobile contributed to accident between two trucks could not recover indemnification from automobile driver
EQT Prod. Co. v. Terra Servs., LLC
179 F. Supp. 3d 486 (W.D. Pa. 2016) Cited 34 times
Finding liability was contractual in nature where the contract stated the work would be performed in a "workmanlike" and "safe" manner
Sirianni v. Nugent Bros., Inc.
509 Pa. 564 (Pa. 1986) Cited 71 times
Finding indemnification "is a fault shifting mechanism, operable only when a defendant who has been held liable to a plaintiff solely by operation of law, seeks to recover his loss from a defendant who was actually responsible for the accident which occasioned the loss."
Kemper National v. Smith
419 Pa. Super. 295 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) Cited 49 times
In Kemper National P C Companies v. Smith, 615 A.2d 372 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1992), the Pennsylvania Superior Court declared that "the right of contribution and apportionment of liability among multiple defendants is a matter which is governed exclusively by statute in Pennsylvania."
Universal v. Richard Kacin
2007 Pa. Super. 13 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007) Cited 24 times
Nothing that "an insurer's right to subrogation is limited to the rights of the insured" and "there can be no subrogation where an insured has no cause of action against a defendant"
Lardas, v. Underwriters Ins. Co.
426 Pa. 47 (Pa. 1967) Cited 77 times
Holding that insured's ignorance of the loss did not excuse its failure to bring suit within the limitations period
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,940 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 Cited 3,648 times 10 Legal Analyses
Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy
Section 8322 - Definition
42 Pa. C.S. § 8322 Cited 87 times
Defining "joint tortfeasors" as "two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to persons or property."
Section 8324 - Right of contribution
42 Pa. C.S. § 8324 Cited 84 times
(a) General ruleThe right of contribution exists among joint tort-feasors. (b) Payment required.A joint tort-feasor is not entitled to a money judgment for contribution until he has by payment discharged the common liability or has paid more than his pro rata share thereof. (c) Effect of settlementA joint tort-feasor who enters into a settlement with the injured person is not entitled to recover contribution from another joint tort-feasor whose liability to the injured person is not extinguished
Section 5501 - Scope of chapter
42 Pa. C.S. § 5501 Cited 51 times
Stating that an action must be commenced within the statutory time period "unless . . . a shorter time which is not manifestly unreasonable is prescribed by written agreement"

North American Elite Insurance Company v. Victory Fire Protection, Inc.

20 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding plaintiff's fraud claims were barred by gist of the action doctrine because the acts "arose in the course of the parties' contractual relationship" and "the fraud claims [were] inextricably intertwined with the contract claims"

Holding that the claim was not barred, in part, because it was not founded on the breach of any specific executory promise contained in the contract

Finding district court focused appropriately on the nature of the duty when it found that plaintiffs alleged defendants "violated an obligation created by contract, rather than by 'the larger societal policies embodied in the law of torts'"

Holding that building supply company whose employee's negligence in avoiding automobile contributed to accident between two trucks could not recover indemnification from automobile driver

Finding liability was contractual in nature where the contract stated the work would be performed in a "workmanlike" and "safe" manner

Finding indemnification "is a fault shifting mechanism, operable only when a defendant who has been held liable to a plaintiff solely by operation of law, seeks to recover his loss from a defendant who was actually responsible for the accident which occasioned the loss."

In Kemper National P C Companies v. Smith, 615 A.2d 372 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1992), the Pennsylvania Superior Court declared that "the right of contribution and apportionment of liability among multiple defendants is a matter which is governed exclusively by statute in Pennsylvania."

Nothing that "an insurer's right to subrogation is limited to the rights of the insured" and "there can be no subrogation where an insured has no cause of action against a defendant"

Holding that insured's ignorance of the loss did not excuse its failure to bring suit within the limitations period

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy

Defining "joint tortfeasors" as "two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to persons or property."

Stating that an action must be commenced within the statutory time period "unless . . . a shorter time which is not manifestly unreasonable is prescribed by written agreement"