Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Rule 1925 Opinion Issued in Stepanovich Post-Koken Case

The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas has issued its Rule 1925 Opinion in a Post-Koken case that's on its way up the appellate ladder to the Superior Court - Stepanovich v. McGraw and State Farm, No. GD 10-16523 (C.P. Allegh. Co. Dec. 10, 2012).
At trial, both the tortfeasor defendant's defense counsel and the UIM defense counsel defended the case--with two openings, two direct exams, two cross-exams, two closing arguments, etc.--without the jury ever being informed as to the involvement of State Farm as a UIM defendant.  A defense verdict was entered by the jury.
The trial court judge granted the Plaintiff a new trial after ruling, on post-trial motions, that, upon further reflection, his decision not to allow an identification of the UIM insurance company defendant at trial while still allowing two defense attorneys to defend the matter violated the Plaintiff's due process rights.
State Farm appealed and the Stepanovich court has now issued its Rule 1925 Opinion outlining its reasoning behind the granting of a new trial in this matter.
Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Tim McNair from Erie, PA, as well as to Attorney Tom McDonnell from Pittsburgh PA, for bringing this Opinion to my attention.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.