positive rule in Pennsylvania

2021Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 580 A.2d 395, 398 (Pa. Super. 1990) (citations omitted). “[A]n abuse of discretion exists when the trial court has rendered a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or ____________________________________________ 10PCIC also argues, in a separate issue, that Ms. Salmon “cannot establish a bad faith claim under New Jersey law, and the amendment was consequently against a positive rule of law (thereby rendering it futile).” PCIC’s Brief at 35 n.4.

2021In this regard, Appellees emphasize that Judge Hanna’s ruling was issued in response to Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, “which required [Judge Hanna] to consider and accept all well-pled allegations of the complaint as true, and determine whether on the facts averred, the law concludes that no recovery is possible, with any doubts on whether to grant [Appellees’ motion]” being resolved in favor of Appellant, whereas Judge Bianco’s ruling was rendered following the close of discovery, and was based on “completely different facts and law; specifically, whether given Pennsylvania

1990See Kilian v. Allegheny Co. Dis., 409 Pa. 344 , 185 A.2d 517 (1962).

1990See Kilian v. Allegheny Co. Dis., 409 Pa. 344 , 185 A.2d 517 (1962).

1974By analogy, Rule 1033 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure also permits a party “by leave of court” to amend a pleading; however, our Court has added that “amendments should be liberally allowed except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Mott v. Sewickley Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 357, 359 , 236 A.2d 541, 542 , allocatur refused, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. xxxvii (1967); see also Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402 , 189 A. 2d 267 (1963).

1974By analogy, Rule 1033 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure also permits a party “by leave of court” to amend a pleading; however, our Court has added that “amendments should be liberally allowed except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Mott v. Sewickley Sav. and Loan Ass’n, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 357, 359 , 236 A.2d 541, 542 , allocatur refused, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. xxxvii (1967); see also Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402 , 189 A. 2d 267 (1963).

2024However, “[d]espite this liberal amendment policy, . . . an amendment will not be permitted where it is against a positive rule of law, or where the amendment will surprise or prejudice the opposing party.” Id. (citation omitted).

2015Although amendments are liberally allowed by Pennsylvania courts, “Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly ruled that an amendment will not be permitted where it is against a positive rule of law, or where the amendment will surprise or prejudice the opposing party.” Capobianchi v. BIC Corp., 666 A.2d 344, 346 (1995).

1995Amendments to pleadings “should be liberally allowed except when surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Posternack v. American Casualty Company of Reading, 421 Pa. 21, 24 , 218 A.2d 350, 351-352 . .

1995Amendments to pleadings “should be liberally allowed except when surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Posternack v. American Casualty Company of Reading, 421 Pa. 21, 24 , 218 A.2d 350, 351-352 . .

1997“Allowance of an amendment that is against a positive rule of law would be futile and would ‘cause delay and waste the resources of the court and the opposing party in having to defend against the proposed amendment.’ ” Noll, supra at 280 , 643 A.2d at 84 , quoting Tanner v. Allstate Insurance Co., 321 Pa. Super. 132, 138-39 , 467 A.2d 1164, 1167 (1983).

1997“Allowance of an amendment that is against a positive rule of law would be futile and would ‘cause delay and waste the resources of the court and the opposing party in having to defend against the proposed amendment.’ ” Noll, supra at 280 , 643 A.2d at 84 , quoting Tanner v. Allstate Insurance Co., 321 Pa. Super. 132, 138-39 , 467 A.2d 1164, 1167 (1983).

2018Mitchell & Assocs., Inc., 685 A.2d 141, 147 (Pa. Super. 1996) (stating that “[a]n amendment will not be allowed, however, when it is against a positive rule of law, where it states a new cause of action after the statute of limitations has run, or when it will surprise or prejudice the opposing party.”). - 18 - J-A13041-18 Judgment Entered.

2014However, an amendment is prohibited “when it is against a positive rule of law, ...or when it will surprise or prejudice the opposing party.” Somerset Community Hospital, 685 A.2d at 147 (citation omitted).

1981Leave to amend should be granted “except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Bogert v. Allentown Housing Authority, 426 Pa. 151, 158 , 231 A. 2d 147, 150 (1967).

1981Leave to amend should be granted “except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Bogert v. Allentown Housing Authority, 426 Pa. 151, 158 , 231 A. 2d 147, 150 (1967).

2021“Amendments are to be liberally permitted except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Trial Court Op., 1/28/20, at 2 (quoting Burger v. Borough v. Ingram, 697 A.2d 1037, 1041 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)).

2021“Amendments are to be liberally permitted except where surprise or 6 prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” Id.

2016Dist., 513 A.2d 528, 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

1997The right to amend should be granted at any stage of the proceedings unless there is resulting prejudice to the other party or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law. 513 A.2d at 530 (citations omitted).

2001Noll by Noll v. Harrisburg Area YMCA, 537 Pa. 274, 280 , 643 A.2d 81, 84 (1994); Somerset Community Hospital v. Allan B.

1997“Allowance of an amendment that is against a positive rule of law would be futile and would ‘cause delay and waste the resources of the court and the opposing party in having to defend against the proposed amendment.’ ” Noll, supra at 280 , 643 A.2d at 84 , quoting Tanner v. Allstate Insurance Co., 321 Pa. Super. 132, 138-39 , 467 A.2d 1164, 1167 (1983).

1997However, amendments to pleadings will not be permitted where “(1) the amendment will surprise or prejudice the opposing party, or (2) the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” City of Philadelphia v. Spencer, 139 Pa. Commw. 574, 577 , 591 A.2d 5,7 (1991), citing Stouffer v. Commonwealth, 127 Pa. Commw. 610, 612 , 562 A.2d 922, 923 (1989).

1997However, amendments to pleadings will not be permitted where “(1) the amendment will surprise or prejudice the opposing party, or (2) the amendment is against a positive rule of law.” City of Philadelphia v. Spencer, 139 Pa. Commw. 574, 577 , 591 A.2d 5,7 (1991), citing Stouffer v. Commonwealth, 127 Pa. Commw. 610, 612 , 562 A.2d 922, 923 (1989).

1938As to the evidence which may satisfy the jury that the payment relied upon as a ¡defense was not made, subsequent decisions have not improved on the language of Mr. Justice Sergeant in Foulk v. Brown, 2 Watts 209, 214, 215 , as follows (omitting citations): “After a lapse of twenty years, bonds and other specialties ......legacies, mortgages, judgments, and indeed all evidences of debt excepted out of the statute, are presumed to be paid.......The court will not encourage the laches and indolence of parties, but will presume, after a great length of time, some composition or release to have be

1842See Foulk v. Brown, ( 2 Watts 209 ).

1986In Berman v. Herrick, 424 Pa. 490 , 227 A.2d 840 (1967), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that: Although the allowance of an amendment to a pleading is a matter of judicial discretion, such amendments are liberally permitted except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law. *439 This principle of liberally permitting amendments was reiterated by this Court in Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 335 Pa.Superior Ct. 311, 484 A.2d 148 (1984): The decision to permit an amendment to pleadings is committed to the sound

1986In Berman v. Herrick, 424 Pa. 490 , 227 A.2d 840 (1967), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that: Although the allowance of an amendment to a pleading is a matter of judicial discretion, such amendments are liberally permitted except where surprise or prejudice to the other party will result, or where the amendment is against a positive rule of law. *439 This principle of liberally permitting amendments was reiterated by this Court in Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A., 335 Pa.Superior Ct. 311, 484 A.2d 148 (1984): The decision to permit an amendment to pleadings is committed to the sound

2007Amendments should generally be permitted “to secure a determination of cases on their merits,” Capobianchi v. BIC Corporation, 446 Pa. Super. 130, 134 , 666 A.2d 344, 346 (1995), citing Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 335 Pa. Super. 311, 313 , 484 A.2d 148, 150 (1984), unless a positive rule of law is in opposition or the non-amending party would be unfairly prejudiced.

2007Amendments should generally be permitted “to secure a determination of cases on their merits,” Capobianchi v. BIC Corporation, 446 Pa. Super. 130, 134 , 666 A.2d 344, 346 (1995), citing Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 335 Pa. Super. 311, 313 , 484 A.2d 148, 150 (1984), unless a positive rule of law is in opposition or the non-amending party would be unfairly prejudiced.

2002Amendments should be permitted liberally unless the amendment will prejudice the opposing party or is against a positive rule of law. 6 City of Philadelphia v. Spencer, 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 574 , 591 A.2d 5 (1991).

2002Amendments should be permitted liberally unless the amendment will prejudice the opposing party or is against a positive rule of law. 6 City of Philadelphia v. Spencer, 139 Pa.Cmwlth. 574 , 591 A.2d 5 (1991).

1990In Grim v. Betz, 372 Pa. Super. 614 , 539 A.2d 1365 (1988), the Superior Court said this: “Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that their request to amend, in order to plead a ‘seat belt defense,’ was contrary to a positive rule of law.

1990In Grim v. Betz, 372 Pa. Super. 614 , 539 A.2d 1365 (1988), the Superior Court said this: “Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that their request to amend, in order to plead a ‘seat belt defense,’ was contrary to a positive rule of law.

2025See B.G.S., supra.; see also Z.S.W., 946 A.2d at 731 .

2025Discover Bank v. Stucka, 33 A.3d 82, 88 (Pa. Super. 2011), citing Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters, Inc., 580 A.2d 395, 398-99 (Pa. Super. 1990)).

2025See B.G.S., supra.; see also Z.S.W., 946 A.2d at 731 .

2021We do not address this argument in our analysis of PCIC’s third issue. - 19 - J-A26007-20 capricious, has failed to apply the law, or was motivated by partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, 991 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted).