On April 2, 2014, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decided the appeal in the case of Telwell, Inc., against the Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) and affirmed the decision of the Board of Claims that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the underlying claim which arose from a loan made by PSERS to Telwell.
In reaching its decision, the Commonwealth Court recognized that the Board of Claim still retained broad jurisdiction to hear “contract” claims, even where the underlying contracts are not made pursuant to the Procurement Code:
Based upon the expansive construction of the Board’s jurisdiction, which gives effect to the public policy of providing a method of redress to those who contract with the Commonwealth, this Court recently concluded that the Board has jurisdiction over contracts made with a Commonwealth agency, even if the contracts are not made pursuant to the Code.
Nonetheless, the Commonwealth Court was compelled to rule against Telwell on its claim against PSERS finding that the Procurement Code was unambiguous in excluding claims related to loans:
Given the clear and unambiguous language of Section 102(f.1), this Court is constrained to hold that the Board does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Restated Claim.
The Commonwealth Court, however, handed Telwell a partial victory when it remanded the matter to the Board of Claims with instructions to transfer the Telwell claim against Grandbridge Real Estate Capital LLC to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Grandbridge is a private entity without sovereign immunity and was the servicer on the loan to Telwell.
My earlier post on the Telwell v. PSERS dispute can be found here.
The Commonwealth Court decision can be found here.
Christopher I. McCabe, Esq.
