Pennsylvania Court Upholds $37.5M Judgment Against OCF

A Pennsylvania appellate decision has left a Philadelphia developer’s construction firm responsible for a substantial portion of a wrongful death verdict arising from a fatal fall at a residential construction site. In a February 2026 opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the denial of post-trial relief sought by OCF Construction LLC, concluding the record supported the jury’s finding that OCF acted as general contractor and assumed site-safety responsibilities relevant to a subcontractor’s work. The ruling applies Pennsylvania negligence principles and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A to a contractor’s undertakings on a multi-party project, while also sustaining a significant damages award that relied heavily on noneconomic loss evidence.

The Fatal Fall and the Negligence Theory

The case stems from a December 2021 incident at a luxury townhouse construction project in Philadelphia. According to the appellate opinion, Siarhei Marhunou, a 38-year-old employee of DPSY LLC, was installing siding when he fell from a balcony to the ground approximately 45 feet below. The opinion states he was not provided a fall-arrest system that could have prevented the fatal impact. Marhunou was survived by his wife, Hanna Marhunova, and their young son, who was three years old at the time referenced in the appellate decision.

Marhunova brought negligence and wrongful death claims against the property owner and multiple construction-related entities involved in the project. The central liability dispute, as framed on appeal, focused on whether OCF Construction LLC had a duty to the decedent despite the lack of a direct contract with him or his employer. The Superior Court’s discussion emphasizes that, under Pennsylvania law, a party that undertakes to render services necessary for the protection of third persons can be liable for negligent performance of that undertaking. In this context, the plaintiff’s theory turned on OCF’s role in overseeing the project and coordinating work performed by subcontractors.

The Superior Court’s Duty Analysis Under Restatement § 324A

On appeal, OCF challenged the trial court’s denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, arguing it owed no duty to Marhunou because he was a subcontractor and because OCF had allegedly been terminated as general contractor before the accident. The Superior Court rejected these arguments, relying in part on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, as applied in Pennsylvania precedent, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Farabaugh v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. The panel focused on whether OCF’s contractual undertakings amounted to rendering services that included safety-related responsibilities, and whether it was foreseeable that a failure in that role could lead to injury.

The opinion concluded that OCF’s contract established it was rendering services to the property owner and was responsible for overseeing the construction site, even though subcontractors performed the work. The panel also upheld the trial court’s assessment that ambiguity in the record regarding corporate relationships and any purported transfer of responsibility supported submitting the issue to the jury. In affirming the denial of post-trial relief, the court determined the evidence permitted the finding that OCF remained in charge at the time of the fall and therefore could be held to have assumed duties associated with site safety.

Damages, Apportionment of Fault, and Post-Trial Challenges

A jury verdict entered June 28, 2024 found for the plaintiff and allocated responsibility among the defendants, with OCF assigned 50% of the fault for Marhunou’s death. The Superior Court’s opinion references total damages of $68.5 million to be paid by OCF and other entities, while also describing a $37.5 million judgment against OCF that the company sought to avoid through post-trial motions. OCF argued the damages were excessive and not supported by the evidence, particularly as to economic losses.

The appellate panel acknowledged the record contained limited evidence quantifying the family’s economic damages. Nonetheless, it held the award could be sustained based on noneconomic damages, including loss of companionship, comfort, and society, which do not require a mathematical formula. The court concluded that evidence regarding the plaintiff’s and child’s loss was sufficient to support the jury’s determination, and it declined to disturb the verdict on excessiveness grounds. The decision signals that, in workplace-death litigation arising from construction-site incidents, appellate review may defer substantially to the jury’s assessment of noneconomic harm when the record supports the nature and extent of familial loss.

Case Details

Case Name: Marhunova v. Fitler Construction Group LLC et al.

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 2450 EDA 2024

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky PC, Law Offices of Howard J. Bashman

Defense Attorney(s): Lamb McErlane PC, Margolis Edelstein