Opinion
Argued March 11, 1977
April 13, 1977.
Limitation of actions — Applicability to Commonwealth agency.
1. Claims of the General State Authority are not subject to the bar of the statute of limitations. [524-5]
Argued March 11, 1977, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., MENCER and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Original jurisdiction, No. 1515 C.D. 1975, in case of The General State Authority, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George M. Ewing Company and George M. Ewing, Sr., George M. Ewing, Jr., William C. Joyce, Harry R. Fox, Robertson H. Short, Jr., M. Paul Brott, Defendants, v. Fred Loffredo, General Roofing and Insulation Company and The Dow Chemical Company, Additional Defendants. Complaint in assumpsit and trespass in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania seeking damages for alleged defective construction and design work. Additional defendant, The Dow Chemical Company, filed preliminary objections. Held: Preliminary objections overruled.
Michael A. Madar, General Counsel, with him Arnold L. Wainstein, Assistant Counsel, and Richard D. Holahan, Assistant General Counsel, for plaintiff.
Edward E. Knauss, III, with him Metzger, Wickersham, Knauss Erb; Robert W. Maris; John M. Elliott; and Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish Levy, for defendants.
Walter W. Wilt, with him Hepford, Zimmerman Swartz; Warren S. Radler; and Saperston, Day Radler, for additional defendant, Dow Chemical Co.
The parties agree that the primary question argued before the Court on March 11, 1977, on these preliminary objections is whether the statute of limitations can be asserted to bar a claim by the General State Authority. On March 11, 1977, the same day this case was argued, this Court filed its decision in General State Authority v. Kline, 29 Pa. Commw. 232, 370 A.2d 402 (1977), a case that raised the identical question and held, with an opinion by Judge BLATT, that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions brought by the General State Authority.
There was a subsidiary question of whether one of the additional defendants, Dow Chemical Company, could be joined as an additional defendant on the theory of sole liability if the statute of limitations was a bar. The question is now moot in this case.
Accordingly, we will enter the following
ORDER
NOW, April 13, 1977, the preliminary objections of Dow Chemical Company to the complaint joining it as an additional defendant are overruled.