Pennsylvania’s Exclusivity Rule

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE 

Worker’s compensation is the sole remedy for employees who suffer injuries in the course of employment. 77 P.S. § 481(a). 

This means that the employee (or, if he dies, his dependents) cannot sue the employer for personal injury, such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury.  

INTENTIONAL WRONG EXCEPTION 

If an employer fraudulently conceals a danger, engages in intentional misconduct, or deliberately deceives an employee about a workplace hazard, the exclusivity doctrine may not apply when an injury results. This might happen, for example, where the employer deliberately conceals a hazard which then injures the employee. See Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 606 A.2d 444 (Pa. 1992) (The employee could sue his employer where the employer allegedly concealed the dangers of lead exposure.). 

PERSONAL ANIMUS (OR “THIRD PARTY”) EXCEPTION 

An employee may be able to sue for personal injuries where the injury was caused by a third party or coworker. The WCA states that this type of injury is not considered an injury occurring within the course of employment. Thus, the exclusivity rule does not apply to it. 77 P.S. § 411. 

To succeed in showing that this exception applies, the employee generally has to convince the court that: 

(1) The incident arose because of a history of personal animosity between him and the third-party or coworker; 

(2) The injuries were not work-related; and 

(3) The third-party or coworker was acting for purely personal reasons. 

LACK OF COVERAGE EXCEPTION 

The exclusivity rule does not apply if the employer has not obtained workers’ compensation coverage. In that situation, the worker can: 

(1) File a claim with the Uninsured Employers Guaranty Fund; and/or 

(2) Sue the employer directly in civil court. 

LATENT OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE EXCEPTION 

If a disease manifests more than 300 weeks after last exposure, it may manifest when the employee is no longer eligible for compensation. If that’s the case, the exclusivity rule won’t prevent the injured worker from suing in tort. 

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE 

The exclusive remedy doctrine may not apply where the employer plays a second role (such as a property owner) that makes it responsible to the employee independent of the employer-employee relationship.  

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ACT 

The ODA also has its own exclusivity rule. However, an employee can still sue in tort if an occupational disease manifests more than four years after the injured worker was last employed with the employer. Herold v. University of Pittsburgh, 329 A.3d 1159 (Pa. 2025). 

RECENT CASES 

Ferreria v. West German Motor Imports, No. 744 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Ct. 02/15/24) 

An auto detailer who was physically attacked by coworkers failed to satisfy the personal animus exception. He argued that the employer was negligent in failing to timely intervene during the incident. He did not point to any facts asserting that the attack was motivated by personal animosity that was unrelated to his employment.  

Franczyk v. Home Depot, Inc., 292 A.3d 852 (Pa. 2023) 

An employee sued a third party after a dog bit him at work. The exclusivity rule prevented him from suing his employer for not preserving evidence relating to the incident. The court said a worker can’t sue an employer for making it more difficult for an injured worker to bring a case against a third party.  

Do you need to know what the exclusive remedy rules are in your state? You need Simply Research.

Share This Article: