In Zauflik v. Pennsbury Sch. Dist., 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 233, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the $500,000 statutory cap on damage awards against governmental entities, finding the damages limit imposed by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act constitutional. In a 2-1 decision, the court affirmed the trial court’s molded verdict of $500,000 after more than $14 million was awarded by a Bucks County jury.

 

In Zauflik, a student was run over by a school bus that ran off of the road due to driver negligence. She suffered catastrophic injuries, which included leg amputation. The student filed suit against the school district and a jury entered a verdict in the student’s favor for over $14 million. Despite the district’s insurance policy in excess of the cap, by post-trial orders, the trial court molded the verdict down to $500,000 to comply with §8553. The student appealed, asserting a facial challenge to the Political Tort Claims Act and challenged the Act as applied.

 

Section 8553 of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act limits recovery of damages against political subdivisions of the Commonwealth to $500,000 in the aggregate for tort injuries arising from the same transaction. There have been multiple unsuccessful constitutional challenges to the Act. The Zauflik court relied on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s finding that Pa. Const. Art. 1, §11 does not prohibit the legislature from enacting a limit on liability on governmental entities. The court reasoned: “Because §11 authorizes the General Assembly to abolish a cause of action, surely it may also limit the recovery on the actions which are permitted.” The court also cited Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedents which held that Art. 1., § 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which bars the legislature from capping compensatory damages except in workers’ compensation, does not restrict the legislature from providing for less than full recovery for injuries to persons or property where the defendant is a political subdivision.

 

The Zauflik court found that there was no violation of the constitutional right to a jury trial because it was within the legislature’s control to determine certain bars to suit. If a court were to strike the statutory cap, which was created by the legislature, it would be a violation of the principle of separation of powers. Additionally, the Zauflik court stated that because the analysis of a substantive due process claim was the same analysis as that under an equal protection claim, the statutory cap did not violate substantive due process pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s finding that the cap did not violate equal protection. Further, the Supreme Court has held that the statutory cap for political subdivisions and not for private parties is justified due to the interest to preserve the public treasury against abnormally large recoveries.

 

The court found that a governmental entity’s purchase of liability insurance in no way waives the statutory cap under the plain language of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Whether the existence of an excess policy or a different government interest could be a factor which changes the balance of interests in the constitutional analysis was found not to be within the Commonwealth Court’s purview.

 

The dissent found the statutory cap to violate the student’s constitutional right to juries in civil cases. Senior Judge Friedman said “Consistent with the inviolate right to a trial by jury is the inviolate right to receive the jury’s award.” The dissent believed the statutory cap was unconstitutional as applied because the award, which was limited by the Act’s cap, bore no relationship with the loss suffered by the plaintiff as demonstrated by evidence at the trial.

What It Means to You

In cases involving any political subdivision as a defendant, be cognizant of ongoing challenges to the Act and stay informed about current precedent. With Zauflik likely be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it will be particularly interesting to see whether the purchase of excess insurance has any effect on the constitutional analysis of the statutory cap.