Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5501 (2026)

  Scope of chapter.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

 

 

CHAPTER 55

LIMITATION OF TIME

 

Subchapter

A.  General Provisions

B.  Civil Actions and Proceedings

C.  Criminal Proceedings

D.  Appeals

 

Enactment.  Chapter 55 was added July 9, 1976, P.L.586, No.142, effective 60 days from the date of final enactment of the act of April 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53.

Special Provisions in Appendix.  See section 25 of Act 142 of 1976 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to the effect of Act 142 on periods of limitations applicable under prior law.

Cross References.  Chapter 55 is referred to in sections 763, 933, 1722, 5103, 7538 of this title; section 108 of Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses); section 921 of Title 30 (Fish); section 6302 of Title 75 (Vehicles).

 

 

SUBCHAPTER A

GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

Sec.

5501.  Scope of chapter.

5502.  Method of computing periods of limitation generally.

5503.  Commencement of matters.

5504.  Judicial extension of time.

5505.  Modification of orders.

§ 5501.  Scope of chapter.

(a)  General rule.--An action, proceeding or appeal must be commenced within the time specified in or pursuant to this chapter unless, in the case of a civil action or proceeding, a different time is provided by this title or another statute or a shorter time which is not manifestly unreasonable is prescribed by written agreement.

(b)  Uniform Commercial Code.--The provisions of Title 13 (relating to commercial code), to the extent that they are inconsistent with this chapter, shall control over the provisions of this chapter.

(c)  Equitable matters.--Nothing in this chapter shall modify the principles of waiver, laches and estoppel and similar principles heretofore applicable in equitable matters.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; Nov. 1, 1979, P.L.255, No.86, eff. Jan. 1, 1980; Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days; Dec. 20, 1982, P.L.1409, No.326, eff. imd.; July 11, 1996, P.L.607, No.104, eff. 60 days)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: United Nat'l Ins. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995).
United Nat'l Ins. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995). · cites it 12× “§ 5501, pertaining to statutes of limitation, and added subsection (c), which provides: "[t]his chapter is applicable to equitable matters, but nothing in this chapter shall modify the principles of waiver, laches, and estoppel and similar principles heretofore applicable in…”
Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, 67 A.3d 749 (Pa. 2013). · cites it 4× “Section 5525(a)(7) pertains to [a]n action upon a negotiable or nonnegotiable bond, note or other similar instrument in writing.... 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(7). Neither party argues that this subsection applies to the present facts.”
Witherspoon v. City of Philadelphia, 768 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 2× “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501(a) (emphasis added). The legislature has defined the commencement of an action as, "[a] matter is commenced for the purposes of this chapter when a document embodying the matter is filed in an office authorized .”
Anthony Fielder v. Benjamin Varner the Dist. Attorney of Cnty. of Philadelphia Attorney Gen. of the State of Pennsylvania, 379 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2004). “See 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. §§ 5501, 5522 et seq.”
Ash v. Cont'l Ins., 932 A.2d 877 (Pa. 2007). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501 et seq. It states the following actions are subject to a two-year limitations period: (1) An action for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution or malicious abuse of process.”
Grosso v. Fed. Express Corp., 467 F. Supp. 2d 449 (E.D. Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501(a). 3 It is well-established that a one-year statute of limitations is “not manifestly unreasonable” under § 5501(a).”
Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 140 Wash. 2d 517 (Wash. 2000). “1999) (citing 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5501(a)). Washington insurance law similarly permits suit limitation clauses, provided “such limitation shall not be to a period of less than one year from the date of the loss.”
Gustine Uniontown Assocs., Ltd. Ex Rel. Gustine Uniontown, Inc. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc., 892 A.2d 830 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “¶ 20 Gustine also alleges that it would be manifestly unreasonable to preclude application of the discovery rule under Article 9.”
Raleigh v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 550 A.2d 1013 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 2× “The trial court properly found that Pennsylvania’s general statute of limitations detailed in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501 governs Raleigh’s action.”
Wilkinson v. Ellis, 484 F. Supp. 1072 (E.D. Pa. 1980). “We note that Pennsylvania has recently amended some of its limitations statutes, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501 et seq., but we do not consider the applicability of the amendments because they expressly provide that they cannot revive a time-barred claim.”
Commonwealth v. Allen, 59 A.3d 677 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “” 42 Pa. C.S. § 5501(a) (emphasis added). The Judicial Code defines an “action” as “[a]ny action at law or in equity.”
Caln Vill. Assocs., LP v. Home Indem. Co., 75 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D. Pa. 1999). “42 Pa.Cons.Stat. Ann. § 5501(a). Here, but for the suit limitations clause, the applicable statute of limitations would be four years.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5501(a) — 19 cases
Witherspoon v. City of Philadelphia, 768 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 2001). “" 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501(a) (emphasis added). The legislature has defined the commencement of an action as, "[a] matter is commenced for the purposes of this chapter when a document embodying the matter is filed in an office authorized .”
Grosso v. Fed. Express Corp., 467 F. Supp. 2d 449 (E.D. Pa. 2006). “” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5501(a). 3 It is well-established that a one-year statute of limitations is “not manifestly unreasonable” under § 5501(a).”
United Nat'l Ins. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995). “§ 5501, pertaining to statutes of limitation, and added subsection (c), which provides: "[t]his chapter is applicable to equitable matters, but nothing in this chapter shall modify the principles of waiver, laches, and estoppel and similar principles heretofore applicable in…”
Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 140 Wash. 2d 517 (Wash. 2000). “1999) (citing 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5501(a)). Washington insurance law similarly permits suit limitation clauses, provided “such limitation shall not be to a period of less than one year from the date of the loss.”
Gustine Uniontown Assocs., Ltd. Ex Rel. Gustine Uniontown, Inc. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc., 892 A.2d 830 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “¶ 20 Gustine also alleges that it would be manifestly unreasonable to preclude application of the discovery rule under Article 9.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5501(b) — 2 cases
Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, 67 A.3d 749 (Pa. 2013). “Section 5525(a)(7) pertains to [a]n action upon a negotiable or nonnegotiable bond, note or other similar instrument in writing.... 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(7). Neither party argues that this subsection applies to the present facts.”
First Nat'l Bank v. Keefer, 76 Pa. D. & C.4th 233 (2005).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5501(c) — 3 cases
United Nat'l Ins. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995). “§ 5501, pertaining to statutes of limitation, and added subsection (c), which provides: "[t]his chapter is applicable to equitable matters, but nothing in this chapter shall modify the principles of waiver, laches, and estoppel and similar principles heretofore applicable in…”
Twin City Fire Ins. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 813 F. Supp. 1147 (W.D. Pa. 1992).
Truth Freewill Baptist Church v. Berwick Twp., 26 Pa. D. & C.4th 130 (1995).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.