§ 5522. Six months limitation.
(a) Notice prerequisite to action against government unit.--
(1) Within six months from the date that any injury was sustained or any cause of action
accrued, any person who is about to commence any civil action or proceeding within
this Commonwealth or elsewhere against a government unit for damages on account of
any injury to his person or property under Chapter 85 (relating to matters affecting
government units) or otherwise shall file in the office of the government unit, and
if the action is against a Commonwealth agency for damages, then also file in the
office of the Attorney General, a statement in writing, signed by or in his behalf,
setting forth:
(i) The name and residence address of the person to whom the cause of action has accrued.
(ii) The name and residence address of the person injured.
(iii) The date and hour of the accident.
(iv) The approximate location where the accident occurred.
(v) The name and residence or office address of any attending physician.
(2) If the statement provided for by this subsection is not filed, any civil action or
proceeding commenced against the government unit more than six months after the date
of injury to person or property shall be dismissed and the person to whom any such
cause of action accrued for any injury to person or property shall be forever barred
from proceeding further thereon within this Commonwealth or elsewhere. The court shall
excuse failure to comply with this requirement upon a showing of reasonable excuse
for failure to file such statement.
(3) In the case of a civil action or proceeding against a government unit other than the
Commonwealth government:
(i) The time for giving such written notice does not include the time during which an
individual injured is unable, due to incapacitation or disability from the injury,
to give notice, not exceeding 90 days of incapacity.
(ii) If the injuries to an individual result in death, the time for giving notice shall
commence with such death.
(iii) Failure to comply with this subsection shall not be a bar if the government unit had
actual or constructive notice of the incident or condition giving rise to the claim
of a person.
(b) Commencement of action required.--The following actions and proceedings must be commenced within six months:
(1) An action against any officer of any government unit for anything done in the execution
of his office, except an action subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter.
(2) A petition for the establishment of a deficiency judgment following execution and
delivery of the sheriff's deed for the property sold in connection with the execution
proceedings referenced in the provisions of section 8103(a) (relating to deficiency
judgments).
(3) (Repealed).
(4) An action under section 4563(c) (relating to civil remedy available).
(5) An action or proceeding to set aside a judicial sale of property.
(6) A petition for redetermination of fair market value pursuant to section 8103(f.1)(4)
following execution and delivery of the sheriff's deed for the property sold in connection
with the execution proceedings referenced under section 8103.
(c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to any civil action or proceeding brought under section
8522(b)(10) (relating to exceptions to sovereign immunity) or 8542(b)(9) (relating
to exceptions to governmental immunity).
(Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days; Dec. 20, 1982, P.L.1409, No.326, eff.
60 days; July 9, 1992, P.L.507, No.97, eff. one year; Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1082, No.144,
eff. imd.; Nov. 24, 2004, P.L.1243, No.152, eff. 60 days; Mar. 14, 2014, P.L.46, No.20,
eff. imd.; Nov. 26, 2019, P.L.641, No.87, eff. Nov. 26, 2019)
2019 Amendment. Act 87 added subsec. (c). See sections 9 and 10(3) of Act 87 in the appendix to this
title for special provisions relating to severability and applicability.
2014 Amendment. Act 20 reenacted subsec. (b)(2) and (6), retroactive to January 24, 2005.
2013 Unconstitutionality. Act 152 of 2004 was declared unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603
(Pa. 2013). The unconstitutionality took effect March 17, 2014.
1992 Repeal. Act 97 repealed subsec. (b)(3).
1982 Amendment. Act 326 amended subsecs. (a)(2) and (b). Section 403 of Act 326 provided that the
amendments to Chapter 55 effected by Act 326 shall apply only to causes of action
which accrue after the effective date of Act 326.
1980 Amendment. Act 142 added present section 5522 and repealed former section 5522 relating to the
same subject matter. Section 221(i)(2) of Act 142 provided that, notwithstanding 1
Pa.C.S. § 1957 (relating to ineffective provisions not revived by reenactment in amendatory
statutes), it is hereby declared to be the intent of paragraph (1) to restore 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 5522 to its status prior to the repeal effected by section 802(b) of the act of
November 26, 1978, P.L.1399, No.330, known as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims
Act, except as otherwise expressly provided by such section as reenacted and amended
hereby.
Cross References. Section 5522 is referred to in section 8103 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
168
cases (
25 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 13× “The language of 42 Pa. C. S. §5522(a)(3)(iii) specifically limits the notice waiver to subsection (a); 8 no waiver of the time limitation appears in subsection (b).”
Murphy v. Monroe Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 784 A.2d 878 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Purchasers contend that the trial court erred (1) in failing to determine that Murphy’s petition to set aside the tax sale was barred by the six-month statute of limitations contained in Section 5522(b)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(b)(5); and (2) in failing to…”
Witherspoon v. City of Philadelphia, 768 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 2001).
· cites it 4× “On March 15, 1995, in compliance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522, Witherspoon's counsel notified the City of Philadelphia of his claim.”
Stoppie v. Johns, 720 A.2d 808 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 13× “In opposition to the motion, the Township and Johns raised the issue of the six-month statute of limitations contained in 42 Pa.C.S. §5522(b)(1) asserting that Appellants cannot amend their complaint after the statute of limitations has run.”
Graffigna v. City of Philadelphia, 512 A.2d 91 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 7× “Opinion by Judge Craig, Appellant Salvatore Graffigna appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County dismissing the appellants negligence suit against the City of Philadelphia and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) for failure…”
Pennsylvania Med. Soc'y Liab. Ins. v. Commonwealth, 842 A.2d 379 (Pa. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Finally, the majority cited the notice provision attaching to claims arising under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522, which has been deemed by the Commonwealth Court to incorporate a prejudice dynamic.”
Pennsylvania Land Title Ass'n v. East Stroudsburg Area Sch. Dist., 913 A.2d 961 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 7× “Statute Of Limitations The School Districts contend that PLTA’s and Fidelity’s claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(2). 10 Specifically, the School Districts contend that the most recent tax year in question was 2004 and that the tax…”
Reuben v. O'BRIEN, 445 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982).
· cites it 7× “Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer challenged the existence of a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and asserted that, in any event, appellant’s causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations contained in 42 Pa.”
Ford Ex Rel. Pringle v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 848 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 4× “9 The Authority contends that the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motions because: • Pringle failed to timely file a notice of claim within six months from the date of injury as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a); • No evidence was presented that the Authority’s…”
Twp. of Bensalem v. Moore, 620 A.2d 76 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The Township also argues that Moore’s action in mandamus is barred by the doctrine of laches, by the appropriate statute of limitations and because Moore had an alternative adequate remedy at law. We agree that entry of summary judgment in favor of Moore was improper because…”
Hoy v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 565 A.2d 848 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 10× “The trial court's grant of summary judgment was based upon Appellant's failure to comply with the six months' notice provision of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522. For the reasons set forth herein, we hereby vacate the trial court's order and remand the matter to that court for further…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(1) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a) — 27 cases
Ford Ex Rel. Pringle v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 848 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
“9 The Authority contends that the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motions because: • Pringle failed to timely file a notice of claim within six months from the date of injury as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a); • No evidence was presented that the Authority’s…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)(1) — 12 cases
Ford Ex Rel. Pringle v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 848 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).
“9 The Authority contends that the trial court erred in denying its post-trial motions because: • Pringle failed to timely file a notice of claim within six months from the date of injury as required by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a); • No evidence was presented that the Authority’s…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)(2) — 12 cases
Pennsylvania Land Title Ass'n v. East Stroudsburg Area Sch. Dist., 913 A.2d 961 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
“Statute Of Limitations The School Districts contend that PLTA’s and Fidelity’s claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(2). 10 Specifically, the School Districts contend that the most recent tax year in question was 2004 and that the tax…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)(3) — 2 cases
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)(3)(iii) — 7 cases
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“The language of 42 Pa. C. S. §5522(a)(3)(iii) specifically limits the notice waiver to subsection (a); 8 no waiver of the time limitation appears in subsection (b).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)(l) — 6 cases
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“The language of 42 Pa. C. S. §5522(a)(3)(iii) specifically limits the notice waiver to subsection (a); 8 no waiver of the time limitation appears in subsection (b).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(a)(l)(i) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b) — 13 cases
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“The language of 42 Pa. C. S. §5522(a)(3)(iii) specifically limits the notice waiver to subsection (a); 8 no waiver of the time limitation appears in subsection (b).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(1) — 41 cases
Stoppie v. Johns, 720 A.2d 808 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998).
“In opposition to the motion, the Township and Johns raised the issue of the six-month statute of limitations contained in 42 Pa.C.S. §5522(b)(1) asserting that Appellants cannot amend their complaint after the statute of limitations has run.”
Twp. of Bensalem v. Moore, 620 A.2d 76 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993).
“The Township also argues that Moore’s action in mandamus is barred by the doctrine of laches, by the appropriate statute of limitations and because Moore had an alternative adequate remedy at law. We agree that entry of summary judgment in favor of Moore was improper because…”
Reuben v. O'BRIEN, 445 A.2d 801 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982).
“Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer challenged the existence of a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress and asserted that, in any event, appellant’s causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations contained in 42 Pa.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(2) — 12 cases
Pennsylvania Land Title Ass'n v. East Stroudsburg Area Sch. Dist., 913 A.2d 961 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
“Statute Of Limitations The School Districts contend that PLTA’s and Fidelity’s claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(2). 10 Specifically, the School Districts contend that the most recent tax year in question was 2004 and that the tax…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(2)(b) — 1 case
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(3) — 1 case
Pennsylvania Land Title Ass'n v. East Stroudsburg Area Sch. Dist., 913 A.2d 961 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).
“Statute Of Limitations The School Districts contend that PLTA’s and Fidelity’s claims were barred by the six-month statute of limitations in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)(2). 10 Specifically, the School Districts contend that the most recent tax year in question was 2004 and that the tax…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(5) — 14 cases
Murphy v. Monroe Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 784 A.2d 878 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
“Purchasers contend that the trial court erred (1) in failing to determine that Murphy’s petition to set aside the tax sale was barred by the six-month statute of limitations contained in Section 5522(b)(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(b)(5); and (2) in failing to…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(i) — 1 case
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“The language of 42 Pa. C. S. §5522(a)(3)(iii) specifically limits the notice waiver to subsection (a); 8 no waiver of the time limitation appears in subsection (b).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(b)(l) — 2 cases
Miller v. Emelson, 520 A.2d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
“The language of 42 Pa. C. S. §5522(a)(3)(iii) specifically limits the notice waiver to subsection (a); 8 no waiver of the time limitation appears in subsection (b).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5522(d) — 1 case
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.