Wedner v. Fidelity Security Sytems, Inc.
307 A.2d 429, 228 Pa.Super. 67, 1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1125 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual provision that limits a party's liability for its own negligence is valid and enforceable if it is part of a private agreement between sophisticated commercial entities and is not unconscionable.
Facts:
- Charles Wedner, operating as Wedner Furs, entered into a contract with Fidelity Security Systems, Inc. for a burglar alarm protection service.
- The contract included a provision limiting Fidelity's liability for any reason, including its own negligence, to a sum equal to the yearly service charge of $312.
- The contract referred to this limited sum as 'liquidated damages'.
- Wedner had a similar type of protection contract with a competitor for 20 years prior to this agreement.
- While the contract was in effect, a burglary occurred at Wedner Furs.
- Fidelity allegedly failed to properly perform its contractual duties upon receiving the alarm signal.
- As a result of the burglary, Wedner Furs suffered a loss of $46,180 in merchandise.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Wedner (plaintiff) sued Fidelity Security Systems, Inc. (defendant) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.
- The case was first tried non-jury and resulted in a nonsuit for the defendant.
- The nonsuit was removed and a new trial was granted.
- In the second non-jury trial, the judge found Fidelity had negligently breached the contract but limited Wedner's damages to $312 pursuant to the contract.
- Wedner filed exceptions, which were dismissed by the Court En Banc.
- Wedner (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract clause limiting a burglar alarm company's liability for its own negligence to the amount of the annual service charge constitute an enforceable limitation of liability rather than an unenforceable penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Watkins, J. (in Support of Affirmance)
Yes. The clause is an enforceable limitation of liability. The court held that despite using the term 'liquidated damages,' the provision was clearly intended as a limitation on liability. Such limitations are generally valid in contracts between private business persons relating to their own affairs. The court distinguished this case from those involving public utilities or banks, where exculpatory clauses may be against public policy, finding that burglar alarm services have not reached a comparable level of public necessity. Furthermore, the provision was not unconscionable, as both parties were experienced, established businesses, and Wedner had a choice in how to protect his property, including obtaining his own insurance. The court found this situation analogous to UCC §2-719(3), which permits the limitation of consequential damages in a commercial context.
Dissenting - Cercone, J. (in Support of Reversal)
No. The clause is unenforceable because it is unreasonable, regardless of whether it is labeled a limitation of liability or a liquidated damages clause. The dissent argued that any such clause must be judged by its reasonableness. A limitation of damages to the annual service charge of $312 bears no reasonable relationship to the actual loss of over $46,000. Such an unreasonable limitation renders the contract illusory, as it removes any meaningful incentive for the alarm company to perform its duties. The dissent contended that by allowing the company to simply return the service fee after a negligent breach, the clause deprives the plaintiff of the substantial value of the bargain, which is unconscionable under the principles of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of freedom of contract between sophisticated commercial parties in Pennsylvania. It solidifies the distinction between unenforceable penalties and valid limitation of liability clauses, emphasizing that courts will look to the substance and intent of a provision rather than its label. The case establishes that for non-essential private services, parties are free to allocate risk, even if it results in a significant disparity between the liability limit and potential damages. This precedent encourages commercial parties to carefully negotiate risk allocation and to secure other means of protection, like insurance, rather than relying on courts to void agreed-upon limitations.
Unlock the full brief for Wedner v. Fidelity Security Sytems, Inc.