T. Spencer v. M. Grill and Construction Code Inspectors, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 913 C.D. 2017

Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; April 10, 2018; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Twila Spencer appeals a June 23, 2017, order from the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County, which granted summary judgment in favor of Mike Grill and Construction Code Inspectors, Inc. concerning her malicious prosecution claim. Spencer contends that the Trial Court erred by concluding that the Appellees had probable cause for issuing a citation against her and that her claims were barred by governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

The case stems from a 2008 zoning citation issued to Spencer and her now-deceased husband for failing to secure a building permit for an addition to their garage in Cranberry Township. Grill, then an employee of CCI contracted by the Township for construction code enforcement, became aware of the construction when he observed it in progress. He communicated with Spencer's son, who claimed the building was exempt as it was for agricultural use.

Grill later sent a letter informing Spencer that a zoning permit was required regardless of the claimed exemption and advised obtaining a building permit. Although a zoning citation was issued, it was dismissed at a September 2008 hearing. Over the subsequent years, Grill noted the building's use was not agricultural. In 2013, after confirming this with a contractor, he obtained a search warrant and provided an affidavit of probable cause for the citation issued on October 23, 2013, citing Spencer for occupying a structure without a certificate of occupancy. The Trial Court's opinion affirmed the summary judgment for Appellees.

Appellant pleaded not guilty to a citation, which was withdrawn by the complainant, Grill, during a hearing on December 19, 2013, after cross-examination. The hearing included a previous transcript from a summary appeal on September 4, 2008, where the court noted the absence of evidence linking Appellant and her husband to the construction of a building addition. The court expressed concern over the contractor's failure to secure a permit and ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in a not guilty verdict for the defendants. Grill acknowledged errors in his approach and stated he would likely defer to counsel in the future regarding similar actions. 

Initially, Appellant's complaint included the Township as a defendant; however, after the Township's preliminary objections based on governmental immunity were sustained, the complaint against it was dismissed, leading to an amended complaint. On February 27, 2017, Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the Trial Court on June 23, 2017. The Trial Court concluded that while Appellant could assert claims of malicious prosecution and under the Dragonetti Act, the facts did not demonstrate a lack of probable cause or gross negligence by Appellees, thus entitling them to summary judgment. The Court also determined that Appellees were considered 'employees' of the Township under the Tort Claims Act, granting them governmental immunity. Appellant's appeal argues against this immunity, referencing the Tort Claims Act's provisions on liability for local agencies and their employees.

The Tort Claims Act defines "employee" broadly, encompassing anyone acting on behalf of a government unit, including volunteers and appointed officials, while explicitly excluding independent contractors and their employees. The appellant contends that the appellees are independent contractors and thus not entitled to governmental immunity, arguing that the trial court incorrectly granted immunity based solely on the existence of a government function and a contract. The cited case, Hammermill Paper Company v. The Rust Engineering Company, establishes that determining whether a relationship is employer-employee or owner-independent contractor involves considering various factors, such as control over work, responsibility for results, and the nature of the work. The Supreme Court found the engineering contractor in Hammermill to be an independent contractor due to specialized skills and business engagement.

In this case, the relationship between the appellees and the Township is undisputed, with an agreement designating the appellees as the exclusive authority for building code enforcement. This contract requires the appellees to perform tasks under the Township’s authority, including administering building codes and issuing permits without fee. The arrangement illustrates that the appellees functioned as non-traditional employees rather than independent contractors, as they acted directly under the Township's direction and oversight.

A township code enforcement officer is classified as a 'non-traditional employee' and is entitled to governmental immunity under the Tort Claims Act, as established in case law including Cornell Narberth, LLC v. Borough of Narberth and Higby Development v. Sartor. The definition of 'employee' under the Tort Claims Act does not necessitate traditional employment; rather, it suffices that the individual is acting on behalf of a governmental entity. The court reaffirmed that a company serving as an official building inspector for a borough also qualifies as an employee under this definition, thus granting governmental immunity. The Trial Court's decision that the Appellees acted on behalf of the Township was upheld, leading to a summary judgment in their favor. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's remand in Higby did not negate the immunity for third parties performing governmental functions. Consequently, since the claims against the Appellees are fully barred by governmental immunity, the court did not address the additional issue regarding probable cause related to the citation. The summary judgment motion by Mike Grill and Construction Code Inspectors, Inc. was affirmed, and the Appellant's request for an extension of time for docketing is deemed moot.