Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 14 March 2005 |
| Citation | 2005 PA Super 91,870 A.2d 912 |
| Parties | Francis MEEHAN, Appellant, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. John Patrick McDonnell, Alex Joseph McDonnell and Brian Francis McDonnell, Appellants, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Joseph Crothers, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Charles E. Dietz, Jr., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. P.M.B., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Joseph Nowacky, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Kevin M. Nolan, Sr., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Paul Coleman, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. C.J.M., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Anthony B. Downing, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Stephen Walsh, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. John Doe 3, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. D.P.A., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. John J. McNeila, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. C.T.G., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. James P. Dolan, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Christopher D. Nolan, Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, Appellees. Rocco J. Parisi, Jr., Appellant, v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, His Eminence Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua, the Estate of his Eminence John Cardinal Krol, St. Monica Roman Catholic Church and Rev. Joseph P. Gallagher, Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Richard M. Serbin, Altoona and Jay N. Abramowitch, Wyomissing, for Meehan, John Patrick McDonnell, Alex Joseph McDonnell, Brian Francis McDonnell, Crothers, Deitz, P.M.B., Nowacky, Kevin Nolan, Coleman, C.J.M., Downing, Walsh, Doe, McNeila, C.T.G., Dolan, Christopher Nolan, appellants.
Joseph J. McIntosh, Media, for D.P.A., appellant.
Stewart J. Eisenberg, Philadelphia, for Parisi, appellant.
John J. Duffy, West Chester, for Gallagher.
C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., for appellees.
¶ 1 Appellants, plaintiffs one through seventeen in this consolidated matter1 (hereinafter "Group I Plaintiffs") and plaintiff Rocco J. Parisi, Jr.2 (hereinafter "Group II Plaintiff"), challenge the order of August 13, 2004, granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellees, the defendants in the above referenced cases3 (hereinafter "Archdiocesan Defendants"). The motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted on the basis of the statute of limitations. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting the motion, arguing that the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment exceptions to the statute of limitations are applicable. Appellants claim that jury determinations are necessary with regard to their issues. We affirm. ¶ 2 The relevant factual history is as follows. Between January and May of 2004, appellants commenced lawsuits against various religious authorities based on alleged sexual abuse committed by Archdiocesan employee priests, and in some cases, a nun. Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/04, at 1-2. The earliest allegation of abuse is based on conduct that occurred in 1957, while the latest allegation of abuse is based on conduct that occurred in 1983. Id. at 2. At the time of the alleged abuse, appellants ranged in age from ten to eighteen; and at the time of the filing of their complaints, appellants ranged in age from thirty-four to sixty-one.4Id.
¶ 3 Group I Plaintiffs, who did not file suit against their abusers, brought suit against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Bevilacqua, raising claims of negligence, negligence per se and failure to warn, negligent supervision and failure to supervise, and fraudulent concealment and failure to provide a secure environment. Group I Plaintiffs' Complaints. The Group II Plaintiff brought suit against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Cardinal Bevilacqua, the Estate of Cardinal Krol, St. Monica Roman Catholic Church, and his alleged abuser, Father Gallagher, raising claims of battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, negligence, negligence per se, and respondeat superior. Group II Plaintiff's Complaint. The Archdiocesan Defendants, after filing answers with new matter (which raised the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense), moved for judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations. Trial Court Opinion, 8/13/04, at 2. This motion was granted by the trial court on August 13, 2004, and these appeals follow.5
¶ 4 Our scope of review on an appeal from the grant of judgment on the pleadings "is plenary ... we must determine if the action of the court below was based on clear error of law or whether there were facts disclosed by the pleadings which should properly go to the jury." Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Thornton, 707 A.2d 536, 538 (Pa.Super.1998). Entry of judgment on the pleadings is permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 1034, "which provides for such judgment after the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay trial ... it may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. Additionally, the standard to be applied on review "accepts all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true." Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News, 577 Pa. 598, 848 A.2d 113, 131 (2004).
¶ 5 The Group I Plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred by entering judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations where the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, and new harm exceptions and analyses were applicable so as to warrant a jury determination. The Group I Plaintiffs state that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Bevilacqua engaged in fraudulent conduct with regard to offending priests and nuns by providing known child abusers with unrestricted access to minors, providing child abusers with unrestricted use of church properties, announcing false reasons for re-assignments of child abusers, promoting child abusers within the church hierarchy, falsely listing child abusers' status in official directories, transferring child abusers without notifying parishioners of their history, and allowing child abusers to honorably retire. The Group I Plaintiffs claim that they did not discover this pattern of conduct until 2002 when the Archdiocese of Philadelphia acknowledged allegations of sexual abuse against some of its priests, and the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published statements regarding the Catholic Church's response to the victims of clergy misconduct.6 The Group I Plaintiffs claim that they could not have discovered the Archdiocese's or Cardinal Bevilacqua's roles in these matters until 2002 due to the concealment by the defendants. The Group I Plaintiffs contend that a jury should determine whether these plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing their causes of action. Group I Plaintiffs' Brief.
¶ 6 In support of their claims, the Group I Plaintiffs cite four decisions of the Court of Common Pleas7 in which the lower courts denied preliminary objections or motions for judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations. These courts found that there were fact questions for the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs knew or should have known that they were injured or that the Archdiocese could have been responsible for their injuries. The Group I Plaintiffs claim that similarly, the jury must resolve the issues here. Group I Plaintiffs' Brief.
¶ 7 The Group I Plaintiffs emphasize that their claims against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Bevilacqua are independent causes of action from any claims against their abusers. With regard to the statute of limitations, the Group I Plaintiffs' discovery rule exception claim is that they did not know they were injured by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and Cardinal Bevilacqua at the time of the abuse and that because of the defendants' conduct, they could not have known the Archdiocese or Cardinal Bevilacqua injured them or caused their injury at the time of the abuse. The Group I Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claim is that because of the nature of their relationship to the Archdiocese and its personnel, and due to the systematic pattern of conduct exhibited by the Archdiocese, the statute of limitations should be tolled since the plaintiffs relaxed their vigilance in bringing suit, and the Archdiocese's conduct prevented them from discovering their injury or its cause within the prescribed period of time. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that, beginning in 2002, the coverage of the Catholic Church abuse scandal constituted new harm that should likewise toll the statute of limitations. We are constrained to disagree.
¶ 8 Under Pennsylvania law, tort claims for intentional conduct, negligence, and conduct based in fraud are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524 states, in pertinent part, "the following actions and proceedings must be commenced within two years: an action for assault, battery, false imprisonment ... an action to recover damages for injuries to the person or for the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarpolis v. Tereshko
...failed to identify any acts of concealment which are independent from the underlying conspiracy. Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2005 PA Super 91, 870 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005) (“[I]n order for fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations, the defendant must have ......
-
Doe v. Liberatore
...and the diocese in actions arising from alleged acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by diocesan priests. See Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 870 A.2d 912, 922 n. 9 (Pa.Super.2005); Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc., 879 A.2d 270, 279 n. 4 (Pa.Super.2005). In bo......
-
Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati
...(discovery doctrine inapplicable when victim of sexual abuse always knew that she had been sexually abused); Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia (Pa.Super.2005), 870 A.2d 912, ¶ 19 (claims against archdiocese were time-barred when plaintiffs were aware that the archdiocese employed their ......
-
Eagleman v. Diocese of Rapid City
...the [Societies], which if relied upon, would have caused them to suspend pursuit of their claims.” See Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 870 A.2d 912, 922 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005). Neither have the plaintiffs offered evidence that the Societies mischaracterized the alleged abuse as something......
-
RETRIBUTION AGAINST CATHOLIC DIOCESES BY REVIVAL: THE EVOLUTION AND LEGACY OF THE NEW YORK CHILD VICTIMS ACT.
...facilitated his access to plaintiff and concealed the assault from third parties). (131) See, e.g., Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 870 A.2d 912, 918 (Super. Ct. 2005) (explaining that child sex abuse plaintiffs alleged that the archdiocese's cover up of its knowledge of clergy sexua......
-
Solving the Penn State Problem: Holding the Institution Accountable for Its Conspiracy of Silence
...from committing, fostering, or failing to stop the commission of a sexual offense against a child. 284 Meehan v. Archdiocese of Phila., 870 A.2d 912, 921 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (citing Molineux v. Reed, 532 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1987)) (providing a generic example of a provision for fraudulent ......