Dragonetti Claims
While “Dragonetti” is possibly the coolest name the history of Pennsylvania Law, it is also a word that immediately causes concern to most civil law litigation attorneys. Dragonetti claims are very serious and can implicate an attorney’s law license and massive sums of money if prosecuted correctly.
The Dragonetti Act in Pennsylvania codifies the common law cause of action for wrongful or malicious use of civil proceedings. While Malicious Prosecution claims allow for litigants to sue for wrongful criminal proceedings, Dragonetti claims allow for defense attorneys (and notably, the insurance industry) to pursue Plaintiffs who have previously wholly frivolous or unfounded civil causes of action.
Under the Act, a person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, or continuation of civil proceedings against another can be held liable if they act in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are based. Additionally, for a successful claim under the Act, the underlying proceedings must have terminated in favor of the Dragonetti plaintiff. Raynor v. D'Annunzio, 663 Pa. 582, McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, Pierre v. Post Commer. Real Estate Corp., 2012 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 190.
For example, if a Plaintiff initiates a legal proceeding just to have the defendant spend money defending it, with no real underlying basis to pursue the legal claim, the Plaintiff may be held liable pursuant to Dragonetti.
To establish a claim under the Dragonetti Act, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) the defendant procured, initiated, or continued the civil proceedings against the plaintiff; (2) the proceedings were terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the defendant did not have probable cause for their action; (4) the primary purpose for which the proceedings were brought was not that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim on which the proceedings were based; and (5) the plaintiff suffered damages. McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, Pierre v. Post Commer. Real Estate Corp., 2012 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 190, Nise v. Nise, 2008 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 93.
Defenses to a Dragonetti Act claim include establishing probable cause for bringing the underlying civil proceedings. Probable cause is present if the defendant reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based and either: (1) reasonably believes that under those facts the claim may be valid under the existing or developing law; (2) believes to this effect in reliance upon the advice of counsel, sought in good faith and given after full disclosure of all relevant facts within their knowledge and information; or (3) believes as an attorney of record, in good faith, that their procurement, initiation, or continuation of a civil cause is not intended to merely harass or maliciously injure the opposite party. Raynor v. D'Annunzio, 663 Pa. 582.
Additionally, the Act allows defenses based on good faith reliance on the advice of counsel and to attorneys based upon their good faith reliance on the representations made to them by their clients.
Finally, while Dragonetti claims are exceedingly rare, courts are often sympathetic to pro se litigants who may not understand the law or the implications of filing civil lawsuits. Successful Dragonetti claims are reserved for the worst of the worst offenders who engage in lawsuits without any merit or who otherwise purposely frustrate the defendant (and by implication, the court system) for no good reason other than spite and/or malice.
