Pennsylvania

Personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage claims must be filed within two years of accrual under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524. The two-year tort framework aligns Pennsylvania with the catalog's two-year-PI majority (CO, GA, IL, TX, NV, AZ, CT, KS, OK, LA post-July 2024, FL post-HB 837). The discovery rule applies to latent injury claims under Pennsylvania case law, with the limitations period beginning when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury and its cause.

Medical malpractice claims operate under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE Act) at 40 P.S. § 1303.513, with a two-year SOL from when the cause of action accrues and a seven-year statute of repose from the act or omission. The seven-year med mal repose parallels Massachusetts's seven-year framework and is more generous than California's three-year, Connecticut's three-year, Louisiana's three-year, or Oklahoma's three-year repose periods, and shorter than Texas's ten-year framework. The MCARE Act's framework reflects targeted tort reform for medical liability claims specifically.

Both written and oral contract claims must be filed within four years of breach under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525. Pennsylvania's four-year contract SOL is shorter than the catalog majority (NY, MA, NV, AZ, CT at six years; KS, OK at five years) and operates as one of the shorter contract SOL frameworks among catalog states. The same four-year period applies to written and oral contracts, paralleling California's framework (though California uses four years for written and two years for oral). UCC sale-of-goods claims also follow a four-year period under 13 Pa.C.S. § 2725.

Fraud claims must be filed within two years under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7), with the discovery rule providing that accrual is delayed until the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraud through reasonable diligence. Pennsylvania's two-year fraud period is shorter than the three-year fraud period in most catalog states (NM, TX, FL, CO, CT, AZ, NV) and aligned with Kansas's and Oklahoma's two-year fraud frameworks. The combined two-year tort and two-year fraud framework creates compressed timing for delayed-discovery fraud claims.

Defamation (libel and slander) operates under a one-year period under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5523(1). Pennsylvania's one-year defamation period aligns with the catalog majority (NY, CA, DC, GA, IL, CO, TX, AZ, KS, OK) and is more defense-favorable than the two-year periods in Florida, Nevada, and Connecticut or the three-year periods in Massachusetts and New Mexico.

Pennsylvania's dual sovereign immunity framework (covered separately) imposes additional procedural deadlines for claims against the Commonwealth and political subdivisions. The 6-month notice requirement under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522 applies to claims against governmental units and operates alongside the general SOL periods. Missing the 6-month notice deadline bars the claim independently of the underlying SOL period, even where the substantive claim would otherwise be timely under the general two-year tort framework.

Pennsylvania applies a modified comparative fault framework under 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a). A plaintiff whose negligence is greater than the combined causal negligence of the defendants is barred from recovery. A plaintiff whose negligence is not greater than the combined defendants' negligence (50 percent or less) recovers damages reduced by their proportionate share of fault. The 51-percent bar framework parallels Texas (Chapter 33), Illinois (§ 2-1116), Florida (post-HB 837 § 768.81), Massachusetts (G.L. c. 231 § 85), New York (CPLR Article 16 several liability), Nevada (NRS 41.141), Connecticut (C.G.S. § 52-572h), and Oklahoma (23 O.S. § 13).

Pennsylvania's Fair Share Act, Act 17 of 2011, fundamentally restructured the state's joint and several liability framework. Before 2011, Pennsylvania operated under traditional joint and several liability, where any tortfeasor could be held liable for the full amount of damages regardless of their percentage of fault. The Fair Share Act amended 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102 to abolish joint and several liability for most categories of tort claims, establishing several-only liability as the default rule for defendants whose fault is less than 60 percent.

Under the post-2011 framework at 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a.1), each defendant is liable only for the proportion of damages attributable to that defendant's fault, calculated by the ratio of the defendant's liability to the total liability apportioned among all parties. The several-only framework substantially limits the recovery available against any single defendant in multi-defendant litigation and aligns Pennsylvania with the broader nationwide movement toward several-only allocation that includes Florida (post-HB 837), Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arizona, Connecticut, and many other states.

Pennsylvania's most operationally distinctive comparative fault feature is the 60% threshold for joint and several liability preservation under 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a.1)(3)(iii). A defendant held liable for 60 percent or more of the total fault remains subject to joint and several liability for the full amount of damages awarded. Defendants under the 60 percent threshold are liable only for their several share. The threshold approach is unique among catalog states: most modified comparative jurisdictions either apply several-only liability universally (with categorical exceptions) or preserve joint and several liability universally, but Pennsylvania's percentage-based threshold creates a distinctive operational framework.

The 60% threshold operates with substantial strategic implications. Plaintiffs face strong incentive to develop evidence supporting a single dominant defendant's fault percentage above the 60% threshold to preserve full collection options. Defendants face strong incentive to develop evidence allocating fault more evenly to keep all defendants below the 60% threshold. The threshold creates a defining strategic axis in Pennsylvania multi-defendant litigation that does not exist in any other catalog state.

Joint and several liability is also preserved under 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a.1)(3) for specific categories regardless of the 60% threshold: intentional misrepresentation, intentional torts, hazardous substance claims under the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, and certain Liquor Code violations. In these categories, defendants remain jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages, regardless of the comparative fault allocation. The categorical preservation operates alongside the 60% threshold to define the scope of joint liability under the post-2011 framework.

Pennsylvania adopted modified comparative fault by statute in 1976 (42 Pa.C.S. § 7102), replacing the prior contributory negligence rule. The 1976 adoption was part of the broader nationwide trend toward comparative fault frameworks during the 1970s, aligning Pennsylvania with the same wave of statutory adoptions as Connecticut (1973), Kansas (1974), Nevada (1973), and Oklahoma (1973). The Fair Share Act of 2011 represents the most significant subsequent reform, fundamentally restructuring the joint and several liability framework while preserving the basic 51-percent bar structure adopted in 1976.

Pennsylvania operates a distinctive dual sovereign immunity framework with parallel statutes for claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and claims against political subdivisions (counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governmental units). The Sovereign Immunity Act under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8521 et seq. governs Commonwealth claims, while the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA) under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq. governs local government claims. Both frameworks provide limited waivers of immunity with enumerated exceptions, but the lists of exceptions and the damages caps differ between the two.

The dual framework distinguishes Pennsylvania from most catalog states, which use single unified tort claims acts for both state and local government claims (Massachusetts MTCA, Florida § 768.28, Nevada NRS 41.036, Oklahoma GTCA, Texas TCA). Pennsylvania's parallel structure requires practitioners to identify which framework applies based on the identity of the defendant entity, with substantive and procedural differences operating between the two.

The Sovereign Immunity Act under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b) waives Commonwealth immunity only for nine enumerated categories: (1) vehicle liability, (2) medical-professional liability of Commonwealth employees, (3) care, custody, or control of personal property, (4) Commonwealth real estate, highways, and sidewalks, (5) potholes and other dangerous conditions, (6) care, custody, or control of animals, (7) liquor store sales, (8) National Guard activities, and (9) toxoids and vaccines. The enumerated exceptions are exclusive: claims falling outside these categories remain barred by sovereign immunity regardless of underlying merits.

The enumerated-exception framework is operationally restrictive. Pennsylvania courts apply strict construction to the exceptions, requiring plaintiffs to allege facts that fit precisely within one of the nine categories. Claims that approximate but do not precisely match an enumerated exception are barred. The framework differs from the broader sovereign immunity waivers in Florida (§ 768.28), California (Government Claims Act), and Massachusetts (MTCA), which provide more general waivers subject to specific carve-outs.

The PSTCA under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b) waives local government immunity for eight enumerated categories: (1) operation of vehicles, (2) care, custody, or control of personal property, (3) care, custody, or control of real property, (4) trees, traffic controls, and street lighting, (5) utility service facilities, (6) streets, (7) sidewalks, and (8) care, custody, or control of animals. The PSTCA exceptions focus on local infrastructure and physical conditions, while the Sovereign Immunity Act exceptions include broader categories specific to the Commonwealth (medical care, liquor stores, National Guard, vaccines).

The PSTCA also applies strict construction to its enumerated exceptions, parallel to the Sovereign Immunity Act framework. Practitioners with claims against Pennsylvania local government entities must identify the specific exception that applies and plead facts establishing the claim within that category. The categorical pleading requirements are operationally demanding and require careful factual development at the outset of litigation.

Damages caps differ between the two frameworks. The Sovereign Immunity Act under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8528 imposes a $250,000 cap per claimant and a $1,000,000 aggregate cap per occurrence on Commonwealth claims. The PSTCA under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8553 imposes a $500,000 aggregate cap per occurrence on local government claims, without a separate per-claimant cap. The frameworks operate differently for mass tort matters: Commonwealth claims may produce higher individual recoveries (up to $250K per person) but are subject to the same $1M aggregate as PSTCA's $500K aggregate, scaled to two times for the Commonwealth.

Both frameworks require written notice within six months of the date the claim arose under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522. The 6-month notice deadline parallels the notice frameworks in California's Government Claims Act, Texas's TCA, Georgia's Ante Litem notice, and DC's § 12-309. Missing the 6-month notice deadline bars the claim independently of compliance with the underlying SOL and the substantive enumerated exception requirements. The combination of strict enumerated exceptions, statutory damages caps, and the 6-month notice deadline creates a procedurally demanding framework for Pennsylvania governmental tort claims.

Pennsylvania is the only state in the firm's service area catalog without any state-level False Claims Act framework. Unlike states with broad qui tam FCAs (NY, CA, IL, GA, MA, NM, TX, NV, CT, OR, TN) or Medicaid-only state FCAs (CO, AZ, LA, OK, UT, WA), Pennsylvania has no analogous statutory framework that creates a private cause of action for fraud against the Commonwealth or political subdivisions. The absence of a state FCA is operationally significant for fraud practitioners and substantially shapes the available enforcement mechanisms for fraud committed against Pennsylvania governmental entities.

Pennsylvania has considered state FCA legislation multiple times, with bills introduced in various legislative sessions, but none have been enacted into law. The legislative discussions have addressed both broad FCA frameworks and narrower Medicaid-only frameworks, but neither type has secured passage. As of the most recent legislative sessions, Pennsylvania remains without a state FCA framework, making it the only state in the catalog with this gap.

Pennsylvania fraud practitioners must rely entirely on the federal False Claims Act under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. for qui tam actions and government-recovery fraud claims. The federal FCA covers fraud against federal funds, including the federal portion of Medicaid (which provides matching funds to state Medicaid programs), federal contracts, federal grants, and other federally-funded programs. Qui tam relators in Pennsylvania can pursue federal FCA actions in federal court, with the Pennsylvania portion of jointly-funded programs covered through the federal match component.

The federal FCA covers a substantial portion of Pennsylvania-related fraud claims because Medicaid (the largest category of state qui tam claims in states with broad FCAs) is jointly funded by federal and state governments. Fraud against Medicaid generally implicates federal funds, allowing federal FCA enforcement to reach most Medicaid fraud claims even without a Pennsylvania state FCA. However, fraud committed against Pennsylvania programs that do not involve federal funds (state-only contracts, state-only grants, state-only Medicaid expenditures beyond the federal match) cannot be pursued under the federal FCA framework.

Pennsylvania has several state-level fraud enforcement mechanisms that operate outside the qui tam framework. The Pennsylvania Attorney General has authority to investigate and prosecute fraud against the Commonwealth under various statutes, including the Public Welfare Code's Medicaid fraud provisions, the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, and general criminal fraud statutes. Administrative remedies through the Department of Human Services, Department of Health, and other Commonwealth agencies provide additional enforcement avenues, including provider exclusions and recoupments.

However, these state-level enforcement mechanisms do not include qui tam relator provisions: private individuals cannot bring fraud actions on behalf of the Commonwealth and share in recoveries the way they can in qui tam states. The absence of a qui tam framework limits private incentives for fraud detection and reporting in Pennsylvania state-funded programs compared to states with broad or Medicaid-only FCAs.

Among catalog states, Pennsylvania's framework differs from all others. Broad state FCAs (NY, CA, IL, GA, MA, NM, TX, NV, CT, OR, TN) cover state contracts, state grants, state Medicaid funds, and other state-funded categories. Medicaid-only state FCAs (CO, AZ, LA, OK, UT, WA) cover Medicaid fraud specifically. Pennsylvania's no-state-FCA framework relies entirely on federal enforcement and state administrative/criminal enforcement, with no private qui tam mechanism for state-funded programs.

For practitioners with Pennsylvania fraud exposure, the operational implications include: (1) qui tam actions must proceed in federal court under the federal FCA, with venue and jurisdiction governed by federal procedural rules; (2) state-only funded programs cannot be reached through qui tam actions, requiring reliance on state administrative or criminal enforcement; (3) cross-state coordination with parallel state FCA actions in other jurisdictions requires careful consideration of the absence of a Pennsylvania parallel; and (4) clients evaluating multi-state fraud exposure must understand that Pennsylvania creates a gap in private qui tam coverage compared to other catalog states.