a careful reading of the portions of the complaint filed May 14, 1986, which were incorporated into the amended complaint filed June 6, 1989, the appellants’ answer to Hosack, Specht’s motion for summary judgment and the brief filed for this appeal does not make any such distinction. The Aliquippa School District did not plead a separate cause of action against Hosack, Specht on its own for recovery of its alleged investigative and attorneys’ fees. As such, we limit this holding to the negligence claim asserted by Lumbermens, as subrogee of the Aliquippa School District, against Hosack, Specht. Moreover, it would not appear that the Aliquippa School District could itself invoke nullum tempus to defeat the expired statute of limitations. See Borough of West Fairview v. Hess, supra,
holding that borough could not invoke nullum tempus to assert untimely claim against auditors for alleged negligence holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim