The Pennsylvania Legislature is currently considering House Bill 1976 (“HB 1976”) which will significantly limit the list of counties where a plaintiff may bring a personal injury action—although the bill would not affect the venue rules for medical malpractice claims.

As the Rules of Civil Procedure currently read, a claim against a corporation or similar entity may be filed in counties which fall into any one of these three categories: (1) the county where the cause of action arose; (2) the county where the corporation has its principal place of business; and (3) the county where the corporation regularly conducts business. HB 1976 would eliminate the third option completely although it would now permit the plaintiff to file suit in the county where the plaintiff is domiciled.

Moreover, HB 1976 would further restrict venue selection in those instances where suit is filed against more than one corporation. In that instance, the suit could only be filed in the county where the plaintiff is domiciled or in the county where the cause of action arose. The bill, if enacted, would permit a court to transfer the matter to a county where the claim could have been brought against any single corporation, but only upon good cause shown. “Good cause” is meaningfully defined as that instance where convenience of the parties, efficiency, and cost of litigation weigh in favor of transfer.

The proposed bill would open a potentially new venue to plaintiffs: the county where the plaintiff is domiciled. In contrast, the bill would eliminate the prior rule permitting a party to file suit in a county where the corporation regularly conducts business. The significance lies in the fact that there are instances where the county selected by the plaintiff has no other connection to the suit other than the defendant conducting some level of business there. For a department store with a single store, the “regularly conducting business” rule could result in it being hailed in to court in any of the surrounding counties despite it having only a single location.

HB 1976, if passed, will likely result in a titanic shift in the allocation of new case filings. The bill has a number of hurdles to clear, including a third consideration in the House and then a vote by the Senate. As of this writing, though, it has made its way through the Appropriations Committee without change and appears to be moving quickly through the legislative process. The law firm of Cipriani & Werner will continue to monitor this bill and will advise immediately should it be passed.