Today, in Whittington v. Daniels, Pa. Supreme Ct. Dkt. No. 47 MAP 2025 ((10/29/2026), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Superior Court and a Trial Court to uphold a jury’s verdict in favor of Pennsylvania homeowners who were swindled out of their home improvement deposit by a defendant builder. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision is “a case of first impression”, a legal phrase meaning that the Court had never answered this exact question before.
Here is what happened. Gary and Donna Whittington paid a builder $10,000 for a home he never built. When he kept their money, they sued the builder in small claims court and won. The builder then appealed to a higher court. Because of a tricky filing deadline created through the Pennsylvania Small Claims Rules of Civil Procedure that required the Whittingtons to file a new complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, after a Franklin County jury decided the case in the Whittingtons' favor, awarding them damages, the Trial Court judge, on post-verdict motion, threw out the jury’s verdict and entered its judgment in favor of the defendant builder because the trial court concluded that the Whittingtons did not file their complaint, after the builder’s appeal from small claims, within the time required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In other words, because of a procedural timing issue, the trial court threw out the Whittingtons' win at trial and threw out the Whittingtons' case with it, finding that the Whittingtons' claims, which included conversion – another legal term meaning “theft of property” – was “time barred”, that is, not filed within the time permitted by statute, referred to as a the “statute of limitations.” The Whittingtons, through their counsel, appealed the trial judge’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court and that appellate court agreed with the trial court’s ruling and affirmed its decision to throw out the Whittingtons' case.
For almost his entire legal career, over thirty (30) years, Arthur Bugay has been a proud member of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice. The Pennsylvania Association for Justice is a nonprofit group of about 2,000 Pennsylvania trial lawyers that, for nearly 50 years, has promoted the rights of Pennsylvania citizens by advocating to protect their unfettered right to trial by jury, to guarantee the full and just compensation for innocent victims, and to protect Pennsylvania litigants by fighting to maintain a free and independent judiciary. In 2012, Arthur was recognized by the Pennsylvania Association for Justice (“PaAJ”) for his appellate skills when it awarded him the 2012 George F. Douglas, Jr., Amicus Curiae Award for outstanding appellate advocacy.
Arthur wrote the PaAJ Amicus Curiae brief to support the Whittingtons. An Amicus Curiae brief is an argument presented to the Court, here the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, as a “friend of the Court.” The Supreme Court accepted this brief and today ruled in favor of the Whittingtons. In so doing, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided a procedural question that had never been addressed before – making the Whittington decision very important even though the case started in small claims court. The Supreme Court’s decision is an excellent one and will help everyday Pennsylvanians protect their rights even when they attempt to “go it alone” in small claims court. However, the decision also shows why it is good to have legal advice. In today’s world of “artificial intelligence” there is no substitute for having a good lawyer review your case so you can protect your rights.
In Whittington, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with the Plaintiffs, our side, and reversed the Superior Court’s order and decision which had upheld the trial court’s dismissal to hold that the Whittingtons’ claims were commenced within the Pennsylvania Statute of Limitations and that the jury’s verdict in their favor, should be upheld, thereby ending their long appellate journey by reaching the correct legal result, thereby preserving justice in Pennsylvania Courts. The Whittington decision is a small case, but it is a Landmark decision because it stands as a guidepost for everyday Pennsylvanians as they attempt to stand up for their rights when harmed by others.
