existed here. Plaintiffs also argue that the Pennsylvania minority tolling principle applies to toll the two-year statute of limitations on Plaintiffs Section 504 claims. (See Pis.’ Mot. for J. of Admin. R. 16-18.) Plaintiffs’ argument for minority tolling could only apply to P.P.’s claims on his own behalf—not to the Parents’ claims on his behalf. Pennsylvania’s minority tolling statute provides, If an individual entitled to bring a civil action is an unemancipated minor at the time the cause of action accrues, the period of minority shall not be deemed a portion of the time period within which the action must be commenced. Such person shall have the same time for commencing an action after attaining majority as is allowed to others sburgh, 563 Pa. 439, 761 A.2d 1159 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The court need not consider whether
holding that sixyear statute of limitations ran from moment of unequivocal repudiation holding that the property appraiser was estopped from asserting the statute of limitations where the failure to bring the action within the limitations period was the direct result of the property appraisers failure to timely perform a related duty owed to plaintiff holding that although the statute of limitations ran on the parents action the child could bring action after majority was reached holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void holding that a minor who initiated an action through her next friend within the applicable oneyear limitations period seeking damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident was permitted to amend her action to add another defendant even after that oneyear period expired because her right to maintain an action would continue for one year after she reached the age of majority