# Steiner v. Markel

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 29, 2009 · 600 Pa. 515

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753565

## Case

- **Full name:** Clifford L. STEINER and Bonnie J. Steiner, Appellees v. John F. MARKEL, Esquire and Nikolaus & Hohenadel, LLP, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 29, 2009
- **Citations:** 600 Pa. 515; 968 A.2d 1253; 2009 Pa. LEXIS 666
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Greenspan
- **Cited by:** 142 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753565

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an appellate court may not reverse a judgment on a basis that was not properly raised and preserved by the parties
- holding that inclusion of an issue in a 1925(b) statement that has not been previously preserved does not entitle litigant to appellate review of the unpreserved claim
- holding that because the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to apprise the defendants that the plaintiffs were raising a breach of contract claim, the plaintiffs essentially waived such claim
- explaining that Pennsylvania is a fact-pleading jurisdiction that requires a plaintiff to plead facts giving rise to an enforceable right
- holding, “because issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, a 1925(b) [concise] statement can therefore never be used to raise a claim in -2- J-S21017-21 the first instance.”

## Opinion text

*528 Justice TODD,
concurring.
I agree with the conclusion expressed in the Majority Opinion that Appellees waived their argument with respect to trial court error in not construing their professional malpractice claim as a claim for breach of contract. Because Appellees failed to raise this argument in response to Appellants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in Appellees’ concise statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), it is, in my view, clearly waived. Accordingly, I would not reach the underlying question of whether a trial court indeed has a duty to discern a cause of action from the facts stated in a complaint. I, therefore, join the Majority Opinion’s analysis and conclusion only with regard to waiver.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753565. Public record. Not legal advice.