The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued a significant decision reaffirming the principle that parties may, in advance of the commencement of litigation, contractually agree where their disputes will be litigated.
Case Background and Superior Court’s Decision Explained
In Somerlot v. Jung, the plaintiff, who alleged injury resulting from a surgical procedure, sought to sue a Bucks County healthcare provider in Philadelphia County. This strategic decision likely reflected Philadelphia County’s reputation as a more plaintiff-friendly venue. However, before undergoing the surgery, the plaintiff signed a one-page “Consent-to-Operate” agreement, which included the following provision:
“Any legal claims or civil actions … related to … medical services provided by [the medical provider] or its employees, shall be brought solely in the Courts of Bucks County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”
The plaintiff argued that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”) should override the contractual venue provision, contending that the Rules, not private agreements, control where litigation can be brought. The Pennsylvania Superior Court disagreed, holding that there was no conflict between the Rules and the parties’ contract. The Court explained that the Rules dictate where venue is permitted, but do not mandate where actions must be brought, and do not prohibit parties from contractually agreeing to a specific venue before a dispute arises. The Court cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Central Contracting Company v. C.E. Youngdahl & Company, Inc., which held that a venue-selection clause “is unreasonable only where its enforcement would, under all circumstances existing at the time of litigation, seriously impair plaintiff’s ability to pursue [her] cause of action.”
The plaintiff in Somerlot also argued that the venue-selection clause in the contract was unconscionable and thus, avoidable. The plaintiff argued that there was a lack of meaningful choice as the Consent-to-Operate Contract was provided immediately before surgery and unreasonably favored the medical provider. The Superior Court disagreed, opining that the plaintiff could have crossed out the venue-selection clause, negotiated for different terms, or simply walked away from the surgery. It is important to note that the surgery at issue was out-patient and not performed on an emergency basis.
Impact of this Decision
This decision has meaningful implications for businesses across the Commonwealth. It confirms that Pennsylvania law allows parties to choose their potential litigation venue through contract – a tool to prevent venue shopping. Essentially, these venue selection clauses provide a mechanism for parties to contractually ensure disputes are litigated on home turf.
For health care providers in particular, the Court’s holding that the venue-selection clause was not unconscionable is significant given that patients are likely to argue that the clause is unreasonable, or they lacked meaningful choice. Also significant for healthcare providers is that the co-defendant in the Somerlot case, Boston Scientific, originally conceded venue in Philadelphia, but will now defend its case in Bucks County. Because health care providers frequently have co-defendants, Somerlot suggests that a venue-selection clause may still prevail so long as the selected venue is proper for those additional co-defendants.
This decision also follows both the Supreme Court’s 2023 watershed decision in Hangey v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., which held that a business could be sued in any county where it regularly conducts business – no matter how minimal – as well as a 2023 venue rule change that eliminated a prior rule restricting medical malpractice actions to the county where the alleged deficient treatment was rendered.
Following the Hangey decision and venue rule change, there is a growing concern that a new era of venue-shopping has been enabled. One advocacy group has labeled the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas a “Judicial Hellhole” citing the rise in nine-figure awards and the recent flood of medical liability suits in that court[1]. The Superior Court’s decision in Somerlot could help to swing the pendulum back in favor of defendants to ensure trials are held in the venue where the alleged harms occurred.
Practical Takeaways for Businesses and Organizations
Given this development, businesses are encouraged to review their contracts and consider including clear, enforceable venue provisions. As with any contract term, mutual agreement is required, but when appropriate language and procedures are employed, these clauses can offer significant strategic benefits and help minimize litigation risk.
Attorneys in Barley Snyder’s Litigation Practice Group and Health Care Industry Group have closely monitored this decision and are available to assist with contract drafting, review, and litigation strategy to ensure your business is in the strongest position possible.
If you have any questions regarding how you can improve your contractual terms following the Somerlot decision, please reach out to attorneys Curtis J. Tokach, Brandon R. Griest, Asahel D. Church, or any member of the Barley Snyder Litigation Practice Group.
—
[1] See 2024-2025 Judicial Hellholes® report from the American Tort Reform Association.
