TORT TALK

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Regular Use Exclusion Upheld by Erie County Court of Common Pleas

In a May 17, 2013 Opinion, in the case of Gill v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 12113 - 2012 (C.P. Erie Co. May 17, 2013 DiSantis, J.), Judge Ernest J. DiSantis, Jr. of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas entered summary judgment in favor of Erie Insurance Exchange based upon the application of a regular use exclusion in the policy. 

According to the opinion, at the time of her motor vehicle accident, the Plaintiff was operating one of her employer’s vehicles when it was rear ended by a tortfeasor.  The Plaintiff worked for a company that was involved of medical monitoring and that operated a self-independent living program.  As part of her job duties, the Plaintiff was required to visit clients and, at times take them to medical appointments, run errands, etc.

After collecting the liability coverage from the tortfeasor and then her employer’s automobile UIM coverage, the Plaintiff turned to her then boyfriend, now husband’s, auto policy with Erie Insurance for additional UIM coverage.  She was living with boyfriend at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff was also a listed driver in the boyfriend’s policy. 

At the time of the accident, the employer had a set policy for employees like the Plaintiff to use a company vehicle for transporting certain “consumers” or customers about the Erie, Pennsylvania  area for medical appointments and personal errands. 

The Plaintiff was using one of the employer's vehicles on the day in question and, as such, the regular use exclusion under the boyfriend/now husband's Erie Insurance policy was deemed applicable by the court.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on her declaratory judgment action was denied and Erie's cross motion was granted. 

In so ruling, the court cited to Superior Court precedent confirming that the regular use exclusion was not against public policy.  Also, of note with respect to this decision is the fact that the particular involved vehicle was not one that the Plaintiff regularly used appeared to be immaterial to the court in rendering its decision.

Rather, the court noted that the record before the court established that the Plaintiff had access to the employer's vehicles and would use them as the demanded by her job duties.  Under these facts the court found that the regular use exclusion applied to preclude coverage under the Erie policy.

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

I sent thanks to Attorney William Wagner of the Erie, Pennsylvania law firm of Marnen, Mioduszewski, Bordonaro, Wagner & Sinnott, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:52 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Declaratory Judgment Actions, Regular Use Exclusion, Regularly Used Non-Owned Exclusion

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Federal Judge James M. Munley Allows Insurance Evidence in Post-Koken Case

In his May 28, 2013 decision in the Post-Koken case of Noone v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., No. 3:12cv1675 (M.D.Pa. May 28, 2013 Munley, J.), Judge James M. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed a motion in limine filed by the defendant UIM carrier seeking to preclude evidence of (1) the amount of premiums paid by the Plaintiff for the UIM policy, (2) the amount of the limits of UIM coverage available, and (3) the amount of the tortfeasor's third party liability coverage along with the amount received by the  plaintiff from the tortfeaser.

The defendant UIM carrier asserted that such information was irrelevant to the issues presented.  The defense also argued that to admit such evidence would serve to suggest to the jury an amount to award the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff countered by asserting that the evidence at issue should be admitted to enable the jury to fully understand and evaluate the case before reaching a verdict.

Judge Munley sided with the Plaintiff's position, denied the motion in limine and ruled that all of the evidence at issue was admissible.  The court felt that the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading. 

In its Opinion, the court noted that the case before it involved a breach of contract claim based upon a UIM contract and given that UIM benefits are designed to compensate an injured party plaintiff when the plaintiff's damages exceed the amount of the tortfeasor's liability limits.  Accordingly, Judge Munley ruled that it was important that the jury not only be made aware of the amount of the tortfeasor's liability limits but also the amount that the Plaintiff recovered from the tortfeasor's liability policy.

The court also stated that the insurance policy the Plaintiff purchased from Progressive was the contract at issue.  Accordingly, Judge Munley ruled that it was "not overly prejudicial" for the defendant for the jury to know the amount of UIM coverage the Plaintiff purchased or what the premium for that policy that was paid by the Plaintiff.  The court stated that this information, "even if it is merely background information, will assist the jury in completely understanding and evaluating the case."

Anyone wishing to review this decision by Federal Middle District Court Judge James M. Munley in the Noone case may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Bruce Zero of the Scranton, PA Powell Law Firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:02 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Evidence, Judge Munley, Koken, Post-Koken, UIM, Underinsured Motorists Claims

Friday, May 24, 2013

Third Circuit Addresses Appeal of Former Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr.

According to a May 24, 2013 article entitled "Third Circuit Keeps Ciavarella Behind Bars" in The Legal Intelligencer by Saranac Hale Spencer, former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.’s appeal of his 28-year sentence for his involvement in the “kids-for-cash” scandal has been almost entirely rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
 
That Court of Appeals found no merit to his challenges other than his argument that one count of honest services mail fraud should have been time-barred. The court vacated that conviction. However, the vacation of that portion of the conviction will have no effect on the amount of time Ciavarella will serve. Rather, it only serves to reduce the amount that he will pay as part of a special assessment.
 
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 3:02 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Ciavarella, Luzerne County

REGISTER NOW -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAMENT IN TWO WEEKS


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:56 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Addresses Standard to Join Additional Defendant

In his recent decision in the case of Montana v. Oakford Wood Home Owners Assn., No. 2012-CV-236 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2013 Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted an original Defendant's Motion for Leave to Join an Additional Defendant.  The court's opinion provides a thorough overview of the current status of the law on this particular issue.

The court granted the Defendant's Motion, in part, because there was no potential risk for delay attributable to newly joined parties.  The court also found that the Additional Defendant failed to provide any grounds for disallowing its late joinder under Rule 2253(b).

The Court employed the current version of Pa. R.C.P. 2253, which has changed the burden applicable to a defendant who seeks to join an additional defendant beyond the sixty day period prescribed.

The current version of Rule 2253, effective January 6, 2005, deletes the “upon cause shown” requirement, and subsection (b) now merely entitles the plaintiff to object to the belated joinder on the basis that the moving party has failed to demonstrate a “reasonable justification for its delay in commencing joinder proceedings.” Any other party, including the party who is to be joined as an additional defendant, may object only on the grounds of prejudice.

Applying these rules to the circumstances before the court in the Montana case led Judge Minora to grant the motion and allow for the joinder of an additional defendant.

Anyone wishing to review this decision of Judge Minora in the Montana case may click this LINK.

For a Tort Talk synopsis of another decision on this same issue handed down by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas back in 2011 in the case of Chelland v. Siegfried v. Solomon, click HERE.



 
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:56 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Joinder of Additional Defendant, Judge Minora, Pleadings

Two More Decisions Addressing Whether Medicare Lien Issues Can Hold Up a Settlement

I recently came across additional decisions in which a trial court addressed the issue of Medicare lien payments possibly holding up the resolution of a civil litigation settlement:

In his 2011 decision in the case of Mackrides v. Marshalls, Marmaxx Operating Corp., No. 11-Civil-6540 (E.D. Pa. April 23, 2013, Joyner, J.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner addressed Medicare issues with regards to a settlement of a slip and fall personal injury suit.  

In this decision, the Court addressed a Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce a Settlement.   The Court ruled that the motion would be denied.  

In the Opinion, the Court noted that, although the Defendant’s failure to tender a proposed Release or settlement, was dilatory, unreasonable, and bordering on being deemed worthy of sanctions, the motion to enforce the settlement was denied where questions about the settlement terms remained unresolved, including questions pertaining to whether the settlement figure included funds to reimburse Medicare, whether Medicare made payments subject to reimbursement, and whether Medicare had waived any right to reimbursement.  

Anyone wishing to review this Mackrides Opinion may click this LINK. 


 
The older Northampton County Court of Common Pleas decision from back in 2011 in the case of Furman v. Wildermuth, No. C-0048-CV-2008-3556 (C.P. Northampton Co. July 12, 2011 Dally, J.), is another example of a trial court decision holding that a settlement of a personal injury may not be conditioned upon receipt of a final conditional payment letter from Medicare.   That Court relied upon the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Zaleppa v. Siewel, 9 A.3d 632 (Pa. 2010).  
 
The Furman decision can be viewed HERE.
 
Source:   “Court Summaries,” Pennsylvania Bar News (May, 2013) by Timothy L. Clawges.    
 


Click HERE to view other Tort Talk posts on Medicare issues, including with respect to settlements of personal injury matters.

Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:55 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Medicare Set-Asides, Medicare/Medicaid, Settlement Negotiations, Settlements

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

District Magistrate Judge James Gibbons Wins Both Primaries for Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge

District Magisterial Judge James Gibbons, 55, prevailed in both the Democratic and Republican primary elections for the open Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas Judge position.

The spot on the bench opened up when Judge Chester Harhut took senior status and then moved to part-time status upon reaching the mandatory retirement age.

District Magistrate
James Gibbons
Judge Gibbons is a University of Scranton graduate and a Seton Hall Law School graduate. 

Over the course of his career, he has worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office before going into practice.  More recently, he gained greater prominence as a local district magistrate judge and, in private practice, as a Mediator/Arbitrator for the resolution of a wide variety of civil litigation matters.  He also previously served on a statewide commission to study and offer recommendations on the Luzerne County juvenile justice system issues that existed a few years back.

District Magistrate Gibbons now moves ahead to the general election in November with no opposition for the position.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:46 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Judge Gibbons, Lackawanna County

Monday, May 20, 2013

Novel Facebook Discovery Order Out of Lancaster County


In a recent Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case of Perrone v. Lancaster Regional Medical Center, No. CI-11-14933 (C.P. Lanc. Co. 2013 Cullen, J.), Judge James P. Cullen crafted a novel method of handling a Facebook Discovery dispute in a civil litigation personal injury case.

This case involved an alleged slip and fall in the defendant hospital allegedly resulting in significant injuries to the Plaintiff.  According to a May 20, 2013 Legal Intelligencer article entitled "Judge Orders Parties to Hire Neutral Expert to Probe Facebook," by Ben Present, at the center of this discovery dispute was photographs of the Plaintiff playing in the snow along with a video of the Plaintiff sledding down a hill and tumbling off the sled at the bottom of the hill all the while laughing.

While the defense contended that these photos and the video post-dated the subject accident, the Plaintiff asserted that these items pre-dated the accident.

Judge Cullen granted limited discovery.  In his two-page order, Judge Cullen ordered the parties to hire a "neutral forensic computer expert" to analyze the Plaintiff's private Facebook page during the 17-day window in which the Defendants claim the photographs and video arose.

In its Order, the court directed that the neutral expert was to identify all photographs of snow and references to snow on Plaintiff's Facebook page, along with any photos depicting the Plaintiff participating in physical activity during the specified time frame.

The parties were required by the Order to agree upon an expert within seven days of the court's Order.  The court also mandated that the discovery be completed within 60 days.

Under the Order, the court directed that the expert was to retain the Plaintiff's Facebook username and password and then download the contents of the Plaintiff's Facebook to a hard drive on which data for the time period at issue was to be isolated.

The cost of this process, including the expert's fees, was to be covered by the Defendants, Lancaster Regional Medical Center and Hospital Housekeeping Systems, as the proponent of the discovery request.

As noted by Ben Present in his article in The Legal Intelligencer this "case appears to be the first matter in which a Pennsylvania judge has ordered the hiring of such an expert to review a party's Facebook information."

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Ben Present of The Legal Intelligencer/Pennsylvania Law Weekly for providing me with a copy of this decision.


I have updated the Tort Talk Facebook Discovery Scorecard with this decision.  You can always access the Facebook Discovery Scorecard by going to Tort Talk at www.TortTalk.com and scrolling down the right hand column and clicking on the date noted under "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."  Once on that page, you can access the actual Opinions and Orders by clicking on the case names.  Here's a quick LINK to the Tort Talk Facebook Discovery Scorecard.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 4:07 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Discovery Issues, Facebook Discovery, Social Networking Sites

REGISTRATION OPEN FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S JUNE 3, 2013 GOLF TOURNAMENT


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:19 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Another Decision out of Eastern District of Pennsylvania Applying the Restatement (Third) in a Products Case

In the recent products liability case of Reardon v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., PICS Case No. 13-0891 (C.P. Pa. April 10, 2013 Yohn, J.), Judge Yohn of the Eastern District Federal Court chose to apply the Restatement (Third) of Torts in deciding a Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and For Summary Judgment.  Ultimately, with the application of the Restatement (Third) to the facts of this case, the court denied the Defendant’s motion.

Anyone wishing to review this recent Pennsylvania federal district court decision utilizing the Restatement (Third) in a products case may click this LINK.

Source:  Pennsylvania Law Weekly Digest of Recent Opinions (April 30, 3013).




Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:18 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Products Liability, Strict Liability

A Philadelphia County Rule 1925 Opinion Upholding Erie Insurance Forum Selection Clause

I previously reported on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas post-Koken decision on venue in the case of Fish v. Erie Insurance Company, No. 003411, Jan. Term, 2013 (C.P. Phila. Co. 2013 New, J.), in which the court granted Erie Insurance Company’s Preliminary Objections based upon a forum selection clause and transferred venue of a UIM case from Philadelphia to Franklin County.   The original ruling was by Order only.

That case has been appealed and Judge New has issued a Rule 1925 Opinion in support of his previous decision.   Anyone wishing to review that decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney John Statler of the Lemoyne, PA law firm of Johnson, Duffie, Stewart &
Widner for forwarding a copy of this Opinion to my attention.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:13 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Koken, Post-Koken, Transfer of Venue, UIM, Underinsured Motorists Claims, Venue

Pennsylvania Superior Court Sides With Claimant in "Sign Down" UIM Case

In its recent decision in the case of Weilacher v. State Farm, No. 124 WDA 2012 (Pa.Super. 2013)(Musmanno, Wecht, and Colville, J.J.)(Opinion by Musmanno, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court sided with a Plaintiff-insured on a question of whether the carrier should have obtained sign down forms for UM/UIM coverages after the insured had increased the liability limits under the policy.
 
In this case, the Weilachers were insured by a policy issued by “State Farm Fire & Casualty Company.” They had initially rejected both UM and UIM coverage pursuant to Section 1731.  The liability limits at policy inception were $25,000/$50,000. At some point the Weileachers added UM coverage in an amount equal to the liability coverage. 
 
A policy was then transferred to “State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company” and a “new” policy issued with a different policy number.  All coverages were the same.  No additional underwriting forms were obtained. 
 
The Weilachers then added UIM coverage in amount equal to the liability coverage.  The policy stayed as is for a couple of years. 
 
In 2009 the Weilecher’s increased the liability coverage only to $500,000/$500,000.  This was done electronically.  The UM/UIM coverage remained at $25,000/$50,000.  No sign down forms were obtained; further, there was no other underwriting documentation obtained at that time.
 
Mrs. Weilacher was thereafter injured in an accident.  The insureds claimed that their UIM coverage should be $1 million ($500,000 x 2 – the amount of the liability coverage, stacked).  State Farm disagreed and tendered the $50,000 in “undisputed coverage.”
 
The insured then instituted a declaratory judgment action in Allegheny County.  State Farm attempted to remove it to federal court, but the case was remanded pursuant to Sumy v. State Auto as the dispute involved only questions of state law.
 
The parties then entered into a stipulation of facts and filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The insured’s position was that State Farm was required to obtain a “sign down” when the liability limits were increased as there had previously been no sign down; and thus this case was distinguishable from Blood v. Old Guard.  State Farm’s position was that Blood was controlling and that the change in liability coverage only did not trigger any obligation to obtain a new sign down form.
 
Judge DelaVecchio the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted State Farm’s motion and denied the insureds’ motion.  An appeal was taken to Superior Court. 
 
Judge Musmano authored the Superior Court's opinion reversing the trial court and holding that State Farm was obligated to provide $1 million in UIM coverage after finding that this matter was factually distinguishable from Blood. 
 
The Superior Court apparently felt that, in Blood, there had been an election of lower UIM coverage at some point in the pendency of the policy.  As such, the insureds in that case had demonstrated an affirmative intention to select UIM coverage less than the liability coverage.  This was found not to be the case with the Weilechers. 
 
The Superior Court also held that there was, in fact, a remedy for failure to comply with Section 1734.  The trial court had agreed with State Farm that Salazar v. Allstate applied and that, even if there was a violation of Section 1734, there was no remedy. 
 
The Superior Court held that Salazar was distinguishable and that the remedy was reformation of the policy to provide UIM coverage in an amount equal to the liability coverage.  The court also held that it was of no moment that the Weilecher’s had paid lower premiums for reduced UIM coverage, citing Erie v. Larrimore.
 
Anyone wishing to review the Superior Court's opinion in Weilecher v. State Farm may click this LINK.
 
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 1:12 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Coverage Questions, Declaratory Judgment Actions, UIM, UM, Underinsured Motorists Claims, Uninsured Motorists Claims

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Judge Mazzoni of Lackawanna County Addresses Notice Requirement in UM Case

In his recent April 5, 2013 decision in the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Roshan, No. 2010-Civil-3105 (C.P. Lacka. Co. 2013 Mazzoni, J.), Judge Robert A. Mazzoni entered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, State Farm, in a nonjury proceeding concerning a declaratory judgment action involving a claim for automobile insurance benefits with regards to a “miss and run accident.”   

Judge Robert A. Mazzoni
Lackawanna County
The issue before the court was whether the Defendant injured party complied with the notice requirements of the MVFRL 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1702 concerning an accident with “an unidentified motor vehicle.”  

Judge Mazzoni found, based upon the record before the court, that the Defendant injured party failed to report the accident to “the police or proper governmental authority” within thirty (30) days as required under §1702.  As such, a non-jury verdict in favor of State Farm was entered by the court. 

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion may click this LINK.  
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 4:20 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Judge Mazzoni, Notice Defense, UM, Uninsured Motorists Claims

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Proper Pleading of a Complaint

In his recent decision in the case of Rogers v. Thomas, No. 2012 - CV - 1464 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 10, 2013 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas entered a demurrer on claims asserted against a parent for the alleged shooting of another by an adult child.  The court dismissed that claim after finding that there was no evidence to show that the parent had any control over the gun used in the alleged shooting.

Judge Nealon's Opinion is also interesting for the analysis of the current law on a variety of issues pertinent to the proper pleading of a Complaint in a civil litigation, including such issues as:
  • Erroneous Pleading of Punitive Damages Claim as Independent Cause of Action;
  • Striking of Impertinent Matters in Complaint;
  • Sustaining Objections to repeated use of nonspecific term "Defendants" in allegations of the Complaint against multiple Defendants, without specifying which allegations applied to what defendants.
Anyone wishing to review Judge Nealon's Opinion in the Rogers case may click this LINK.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 4:19 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Complaint Drafting, Judge Nealon, Pleadings, Punitive Damages

Monday, May 13, 2013

Judge Zulick of Monroe County Denies Punitive Damages Based Upon Cell Phone Use in Unique Case


In the case of Platukis v. Pocono Segway Tours, LLC, PICS Case No. 13-0967 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 8, 2013 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas ruled that allegations in a Complaint simply asserting that a Defendant was using a cell phone while operating a "motor vehicle," in this case a Segway, did not give rise to the state of mind necessary to find that the Defendant acted recklessly and, as such, Preliminary Objections to the punitive damages claims were granted.

This matter arises out of an incident that occurred when the Plaintiff was taking part in a Segway tour provided by the Defendant.   While driving her Segway, the Plaintiff was involved in a collision with another Segway.  The person on the other Segway was using his cell phone and allegedly operating the Segway at an excessive rate of speed.  The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants and alleged punitive damages against the Segway operator and the tour operator.

The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections seeking to strike the punitive damages Complaint. 

The trial court noted that, since the Plaintiff did not allege that the other Segway driver had any “evil motive,” the Plaintiff were required to allege that the Co-Defendants Segway driver’s actions were outrageous and that such outrageous behavior was due to his reckless behavior.   Reviewing the Complaint in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the court found that the Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to support the punitive damages claim.  

I do not have a copy of this decision.  Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact the Pennsylvania Law Weekly Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-7427 and provide the above noted PICS Case No. and pay a small fee. 

Source: Pennsylvania Law Weekly Digest of Recent Opinions (April 30, 2013).
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:41 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Cell Phone Use, Punitive Damages

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Plaintiff Permitted to Consolidate Two Separate Motor Vehicle Accident Lawsuits Under Pa.R.C.P. 213

Judge R. Stanton Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas recently allowed the consolidation of two entirely separate motor vehicle accident lawsuits by a same Plaintiff in the case of Jackson v. Drew, No. GD-12-008737 (C.P. Allegheny April 24, 2013 Wettick, J.). 
Judge R. Stanton Wettick
Allegheny County
According to Judge Wettick's Opinion, the Plaintiff was involved in two separate car accidents in Allegheny County.  The Plaintiff asserted that the second accident aggravated his same injuries from the first accident.  The Plaintiff filed separate suits against the drivers.  Both suits were filed in Allegheny County.  

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a motion under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213 to consolidate the cases alleging a concern that both defendants in the cases would try to blame the other for any of the injuries asserted.

Judge Wettick granted the motion and consolidated the cases under the rationale that both accidents arose out of a common question of law, i.e., that the common question of fact as to what injuries were caused by which accident. 

In his Opinion, Judge Wettick distinguished the separate standards applicable to permissive joinder of separate claims under Pa.R.C.P. 2229.

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

Commentary:

For a similar result under Pa.R.C.P. 213, see Scoggins v. Hardy, 10 Pa.D.&C.4th 64 (C.P. York 1991).

For a contrary analysis under an application of the permissive joinder rules under Pa.R.C.P. 2229 pertaining to Complaints, see Kalker v. Moyer, 921 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2007);  Alper v. Yellow Cab Co., 12 Pa.D.&C.3d 355 (C.P. Phila. Co. 1979).

From the above, it appears that, although two separate accidents can not be pled in the same Complaint under Pa.R.C.P. 2229, in certain circumstances, trial courts may use their discretion to consolidate matters under Pa.R.C.P. 213.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 7:40 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Law, Pleadings

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Research Tools on Tort Talk

Most Tort Talkers receive their Tort Talk info by way of email. If you have ever had the situation where you thought "I know I've seen a recent case on Tort Talk on this issue," this blog post is for you.

Tort Talk is not only a way to get updates on new cases and trends, it can also serve a a kickstart to your research if you actually go to the Tort Talk site at www.TortTalk.com. On the site itself there are a number of research tools (http://www.TortTalk.com/) to help you find the case or cases or article you are looking for.

Note that Tort Talk is NOT an exhaustive legal research site--you should always supplement your research on your issue presented elsewhere to ensure that you have a thorough review of the area of law in question.

Here are the Tools available on Tort Talk:


Search This Blog Box

The Search This Blog Box in the upper right hand column of the site allows readers to type in search terms or key words to look for posts on that particular topic. By typing in your search term in the white box (delay damages, limited tort, slip and fall, or a case name, etc.), you will be sent to a page that will list each Tort Talk post that covers that topic. You can then click on each post that comes up to read further.


Post-Koken Scorecard
You can always access the Post-Koken Scorecard to check on the status of decisions in your county on Post-Koken issues by looking and scrolling down the far right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Post-Koken Scorecard."


Facebook Discovery Scorecard

You can always access the Facebook Discovery Scorecard to check on the status of Pennsylvania decisions on Facebook Discovery issues by looking and scrolling down the far right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."


Labels

Also down on the right hand column of the blog is a section called "Labels," which is another tool that you can use to find cases or articles on a specific topic. By clicking on the Label that's specific to your research ("Bad Faith," "Limited Tort," etc.) you will be sent to a page that list each and every Tort Talk post that touches upon that topic. You can then click on each title to read further.


My Published Articles

Down in the middle of the right hand column of the blog is also a box under the Label "My Published Articles" in which are listed some of the most recently published articles of mine that have been posted online at the www.JDSupra.com website. If you are looking for older articles you can always click on the JDSupra box to go to that site where a full listing of the articles can be accessed and searched.

I note that the Pennsylvania Law Weekly does not allow me to post my articles on the JDSupra site is it is a competitor. However, I am permitted to post my Law Weekly articles on Tort Talk which I have done since I started the blog. You can find those articles by typing in key words or terms into the Search this Blog box. Please also feel free to email me directly for a copy of any of my articles that you may be looking for(dancummins@comcast.net).


Links

Last but certainly not least, down on the right hand column is a list of "Links" I have created to other sites, including my Firm's website and other online professional profiles that I have created along with links to some other legal and non-legal-related websites that may be of interest.


Thanks again for reading Tort Talk and thanks to all who have provided tips on breaking news and cases of note. I am grateful for your interest and support. If I should be able to you help out in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:13 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Legal Research, Tort Talk

Registration Open for Lackawanna Pro Bono's June 3, 2013 Golf Tournament


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:08 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Registration Open for Pennsylvania Defense Institute's Annual Meeting at Bedford Springs Resort (July 18-19, 2013)

Omni Bedford Springs Resort
Bedford Springs, PA

Click this LINK to go to the Registration Form for the PDI Annual Meeting set to take place at the Bedford Springs Resort in Bedford Springs, PA on July 18-19, 2013.

The PDI has arranged for a full slate of CLE opportunities, great speakers, and resort activities, including but not limited to golf. 
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 9:07 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Pennsylvania Defense Institute

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Eastern District Federal Court Dismisses UIM Bad Faith Claim

In a recent memorandum Opinion, the Eastern District Federal Court of Pennsylvania in Clark v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, No. 12-6174 (E.D. Pa. April 26, 2013 Ludwig, J.) dismissed a bad faith claim in an underinsured (UIM) motorists case.

This case involved a bad faith claim filed under Section 8371 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Code and was essentially based upon the Plaintiff's claim of an inadequate offer by the insurance company in a UIM case.  There were $300,000 in UIM limits available and Progressive made a settlement offer of $18,578.00.

After reviewing the record before it, the court determined that the facts pled were not sufficient to support a bad faith claim in this context.  Accordingly, the claim was dismissed without prejudice.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion in Clark v. Progressive may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer and Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price for bringing this case to my attention.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:15 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Bad Faith, UIM, Underinsured Motorists Claims

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Upholds Allstate Forum Selection Clause in UM Case

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas upheld Allstate Insurance Company’s “forum selection clause in the court’s recent Order without Opinion in the case of Motta v. Allstate Ins. Co., March Term 2013, NO. 0839 (C.P. Phila. Co. April 22, 2013).

In this Post-Koken uninsured motorist (UM) matter, the Allstate declarations page listed the named insured’s address as being in located in Berks County.  The accident occurred in Philadelphia County.

Allstate responded to the Complaint filed in Philadelphia County with Preliminary Objections in the form of a motion to transfer venue. 

As noted, the court issued an Order sustaining Allstate’s Preliminary Objections and transferring venue to Berks County.

Anyone wishing to review this one line Order only decision in Motta may click HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney Ken Goodman of the Reading law firm of Rabenold, Koestel & Scheidt for bringing this case to my attention.
 

 
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 8:14 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Automobile Insurance, Koken, Post-Koken, Transfer of Venue, UM, Uninsured Motorists Claims, Venue

Friday, May 3, 2013

Registration Open for Lackawanna Pro Bono's Golf Tournament


Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 11:03 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Tort Talk Expo 2013 a Success - THANKS!

The Tort Talk Expo 2013 that took place on April 18, 2013 at the Mohegan Sun Casino was a well-attended program with over 75 attendees, which included claims professionals, plaintiff's counsel, and defense counsel.

I provided an Auto Law/Post-Koken Update which was followed by a Civil Litigation Update presented by Malcolm MacGregor, Esq. and Michael McDonald, Esq. of the Scranton law firm of McDonald & MacGregor.

Dr. John Kline, a physiatrist with Northeastern Rehabilitation Associates presented on Shoulder and Knee injuries.

The Program concluded with a "View from the Bench" program moderated by Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price and presided over by Judge Carmen Minora of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Michael Vough of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.

The CLE seminar was then followed by a Cocktail Reception at the Breaker's Lounge in the Mohegan Sun Casino.


I send great thanks to all of the presenters, table vendors, and advertisers who helped make the program a success.  Thanks also to all of the attendees who took time out of their busy schedules to attend the event.  I really appreciate it.

Anyone desiring a copy of the written materials from the Tort Talk Expo 2013 may click this LINK.  This volume, containing in excess of 100 pages contains an Auto Law Update and a Civil Litigation Update written by myself along with Dr. Kline's powerpoint presentation on his Shoulders and Knees program.
Posted by Daniel E. Cummins at 12:43 PM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: CLE Seminars, Cummins, Tort Talk
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Subscribe to TortTalk via Email

Subscribe to TortTalk via Email

SEARCH THIS BLOG


Contact Info

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire
CUMMINS LAW
610 Morgan Highway
Clarks Summit, PA 18411
570-319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

www.CumminsLaw.net

PROFILE

My photo
Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
View my complete profile

POST-KOKEN SCORECARD

  • UPDATED AS OF March 1, 2023

FACEBOOK DISCOVERY SCORECARD

  • UPDATED AS OF March 1, 2023

Avvo.com Profile

10.0Daniel Edmund Cummins

Super Lawyer

 
Daniel E. Cummins
 
View Daniel E. Cummins's profile on LinkedIn

Tort Talk Awards

LexisNexis Litigation Resource Center 2011 Top 50 Tort Blogs LexisNexis Insurance Law Community 2011 Top Blogs of the Year LexisNexis Insurance Law Community 2009 Top Blogs of the Year

TORT TALK AWARDS

Tort Talk Awards

POPULAR POSTS

  • Court Addresses Forum Selection Clause in a Post-Koken UIM Case As Well As the Validity of Allegations of Recklessness
  • Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Reviewed In Dispute Between Two Plaintiff's Law Firms Over a Substantial Fee
  • Application of Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens Results in Transfer of Case from Philadelphia to Chester County
  • Have You Registered for the Lackawanna Pro Bono Golf Tournament (or just the CLE and Lunch)?
  • Pennsylvania Superior Court Reviews Scope of Statutory Employer Status for General Contractors

LINKS OF NOTE

  • Cummins Law Firm
  • Cummins Mediation Services
  • My Avvo.com Profile
  • My LinkedIn.com Profile
  • My Justia.com Profile
  • Lackawanna County Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel
  • The Dickinson School of Law
  • Villanova University

OTHER GREAT BLOGS

  • Drug and Device Law (By James Beck, Esq. and others)
  • Lawffice Space - Employment Law Blog (By Phillip K. Miles, Esq.)
  • PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY INSURANCE BAD FAITH CASE LAW BLOG

Blog Archive

  • ►  2023 (74)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (20)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2022 (310)
    • ►  December (24)
    • ►  November (33)
    • ►  October (23)
    • ►  September (24)
    • ►  August (25)
    • ►  July (18)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (36)
    • ►  March (26)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2021 (319)
    • ►  December (46)
    • ►  November (21)
    • ►  October (32)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (29)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (17)
    • ►  May (24)
    • ►  April (20)
    • ►  March (32)
    • ►  February (23)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2020 (445)
    • ►  December (34)
    • ►  November (40)
    • ►  October (41)
    • ►  September (40)
    • ►  August (25)
    • ►  July (35)
    • ►  June (37)
    • ►  May (30)
    • ►  April (40)
    • ►  March (40)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (42)
  • ►  2019 (304)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (24)
    • ►  October (22)
    • ►  September (17)
    • ►  August (22)
    • ►  July (28)
    • ►  June (32)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (27)
    • ►  February (23)
    • ►  January (40)
  • ►  2018 (260)
    • ►  December (18)
    • ►  November (30)
    • ►  October (36)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (16)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (17)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (25)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2017 (196)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (19)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (16)
    • ►  March (16)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (17)
  • ►  2016 (197)
    • ►  December (12)
    • ►  November (12)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (18)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (18)
    • ►  February (16)
    • ►  January (18)
  • ►  2015 (207)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (16)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (20)
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (21)
  • ►  2014 (238)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (20)
    • ►  September (33)
    • ►  August (18)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (18)
    • ►  May (17)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (13)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (15)
  • ▼  2013 (221)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (29)
    • ►  September (22)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (10)
    • ▼  May (23)
      • Regular Use Exclusion Upheld by Erie County Court ...
      • Federal Judge James M. Munley Allows Insurance Evi...
      • Third Circuit Addresses Appeal of Former Luzerne C...
      • REGISTER NOW -- LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S GOLF TOURNAM...
      • Judge Minora of Lackawanna County Addresses Standa...
      • Two More Decisions Addressing Whether Medicare Lie...
      • District Magistrate Judge James Gibbons Wins Both ...
      • Novel Facebook Discovery Order Out of Lancaster Co...
      • REGISTRATION OPEN FOR LACKAWANNA PRO BONO'S JUNE 3...
      • Another Decision out of Eastern District of Pennsy...
      • A Philadelphia County Rule 1925 Opinion Upholding ...
      • Pennsylvania Superior Court Sides With Claimant in...
      • Judge Mazzoni of Lackawanna County Addresses Notic...
      • Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Proper...
      • Judge Zulick of Monroe County Denies Punitive Dama...
      • Plaintiff Permitted to Consolidate Two Separate Mo...
      • Research Tools on Tort Talk
      • Registration Open for Lackawanna Pro Bono's June 3...
      • Registration Open for Pennsylvania Defense Institu...
      • Eastern District Federal Court Dismisses UIM Bad F...
      • Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Upholds ...
      • Registration Open for Lackawanna Pro Bono's Golf T...
      • Tort Talk Expo 2013 a Success - THANKS!
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (19)
    • ►  February (21)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2012 (277)
    • ►  December (21)
    • ►  November (27)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (22)
    • ►  June (14)
    • ►  May (30)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (30)
    • ►  February (26)
    • ►  January (24)
  • ►  2011 (296)
    • ►  December (23)
    • ►  November (39)
    • ►  October (17)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (31)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (22)
    • ►  March (23)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2010 (305)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (26)
    • ►  September (25)
    • ►  August (29)
    • ►  July (27)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (26)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (15)
    • ►  January (23)
  • ►  2009 (133)
    • ►  December (23)
    • ►  November (24)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (14)
    • ►  August (11)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (14)
    • ►  May (19)

Labels

  • Abatement (1)
  • Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (1)
  • Accident Reconstruction Expert (1)
  • ADA (1)
  • Adjacent Landowner (3)
  • Administrative Assistant (2)
  • Admissibility of Insurance Info At Trial (2)
  • Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Violations (1)
  • Admissibility of Photographs at Trial (1)
  • Adopted Business Records Doctrine (1)
  • ADR (4)
  • ADR Agreement (1)
  • Advanced Communication Technology (2)
  • Adverse Inference (3)
  • Affirmative Defenses (2)
  • Affordable Care Act (4)
  • Against The Weight of the Evidence (11)
  • Agency (13)
  • Airline (1)
  • Airplane (1)
  • Alcohol (3)
  • Alien-Venue Rule (1)
  • All-Risk Policy (5)
  • Allegations of Recklessness (85)
  • Alteration of Medical Records (1)
  • Altercation (2)
  • Ambulances (2)
  • Amendment of Pleadings (31)
  • American Legion (1)
  • Americans With Disability Act (1)
  • Amicus Curiae (1)
  • Animal Law (1)
  • Animals (1)
  • Answer and New Matter (10)
  • Appeal Quashed (6)
  • Appeals (17)
  • Arbitration (19)
  • ARD (1)
  • Arson (1)
  • Asbestos Litigation Issues (6)
  • Assault and Battery (4)
  • Assault and Battery Exclusion (3)
  • Assumption of Risk (37)
  • Assured Clear Distance Ahead Doctrine (6)
  • Athletes (1)
  • Attorney As Witness (2)
  • Attorney Refers Plaintiff to Doctor (2)
  • Attorney Registration (1)
  • Attorney Work Product Doctrine (25)
  • Attorney-Client Privilege (39)
  • Attorney's Fees (17)
  • Attractive Nuisance (1)
  • ATV (1)
  • Authentication (11)
  • Auto Business Exclusion (3)
  • Automobile Insurance (333)
  • Automobile Law (71)
  • Autonomous Vehicles (2)
  • BAC Evidence (3)
  • Bad Faith (303)
  • Bad Faith - Delay (8)
  • Bad Faith - Delays by Plaintiff (4)
  • Bad Faith - First Party Claims (6)
  • Bad Faith - General Liability Insurance (2)
  • Bad Faith - Household Exclusion (4)
  • Bad Faith - No Coverage (7)
  • Bad Faith - No Predicate Breach of Contract Claim (1)
  • Bad Faith - No PredicateBreach of Contract Claim (1)
  • Bad Faith - Plaintiff vs. Liability Carrier (3)
  • Bad Faith - Third Party Claims (3)
  • Bad Faith Discovery (26)
  • Bad Faith Expert (4)
  • Bad Faith Statute of Limitations (6)
  • Bad Faith-Claims Handling/Investigation (92)
  • Bad Faith-Delay (2)
  • Bad Faith-Homeowner's Policy (4)
  • Bad Faith-Low Ball Offer (36)
  • Bailment (2)
  • Bankruptcy (4)
  • Bankruptcy Stay (2)
  • Bar Fight (3)
  • Bedbugs (1)
  • Best Lawyers (2)
  • Bicycle Riders (1)
  • Bifurcation of Trial (29)
  • Bike Race (1)
  • Binding Arbitration Agreement (7)
  • Black Box (1)
  • Black Ice (2)
  • Bleachers (1)
  • Borrowed Servant Doctrine (3)
  • Brake Failure (1)
  • Breach of Contract (9)
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty (5)
  • Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (1)
  • Breach of Implied Warranty (1)
  • Breach of Warranty (5)
  • Breach of Warranty of Habitability (1)
  • Brief Writing (14)
  • Buffer (1)
  • Building Codes (2)
  • Building Inspectors (1)
  • Bus Accident (1)
  • Bus Stop (3)
  • Business Interruption Coverage (31)
  • Business Records Exception to Hearsay (3)
  • Cancellation of Insurance Policy (1)
  • Canoe (1)
  • Canoeing (1)
  • Case Management Orders (2)
  • Causal Connection to Maintenance or Use of a Motor Vehicle (1)
  • Cause of Slip or Trip and Fall (55)
  • Cell Phone Use (68)
  • Certificate of Merit (10)
  • Chain Reaction Accident (4)
  • Child Witness (1)
  • Children (3)
  • Chiropractors (2)
  • Choice of Laws (4)
  • Choice of Ways Doctrine (5)
  • Ciavarella (47)
  • Cigarette Smoke (1)
  • Civil Authority Provision (8)
  • Civil Conspiracy (5)
  • Civil Contempt (2)
  • Civil Litigation (34)
  • Civil Litigation Update (4)
  • Civil Rights Litigation (21)
  • Civility (8)
  • Claims File (1)
  • Claims Log Notes (1)
  • Claims Notes (1)
  • Claims Rep Handling Both Third Party and UIM Claim (1)
  • Claims Representative Liability (1)
  • Class Two Insured (2)
  • CLE (1)
  • CLE Seminars (119)
  • Clergy Abuse (1)
  • Closing Arguments (2)
  • Code of Cvility (2)
  • Collateral Estoppel (21)
  • Collateral Order Doctrine (3)
  • Collateral Source Rule (6)
  • College Student (2)
  • Colonel Henry Thomas (1)
  • Commercial Auto Policy (2)
  • Commercial General Liability Policy (1)
  • Commercial Tort (1)
  • Commmicable Disease Exclusion (1)
  • Common Areas (3)
  • Communicable Diseases (1)
  • Community Association (2)
  • Comparative Negligence Act (7)
  • Compelling Opinion Testimony from Non-Party Expert (1)
  • Compensable Pain (1)
  • Competency of Child Witness (1)
  • Complaint (2)
  • Complaint Drafting (31)
  • Complications of Surgery (1)
  • Compromise Verdict (5)
  • Conahan (27)
  • Condominium Act (1)
  • Condominium Association (1)
  • Conflicts of Interest (2)
  • Connor Objections (1)
  • Consent to Settle (1)
  • Consolidation (9)
  • Construction Litigation (13)
  • Construction Zone (1)
  • Constructive Fraud (1)
  • Consumer Expectation Test (4)
  • Contact With Potential Witnesses (2)
  • Contention Interrogatories (1)
  • Continuing Nuisance (1)
  • Continuing Trespass (1)
  • Continuous Representation Rule (1)
  • Contract of Adhesion (1)
  • Contractors (1)
  • Contribution Claim (3)
  • Contributory Negligence (9)
  • Conversion (1)
  • Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule (1)
  • Coordination of Actions (2)
  • Coordination of Benefits Provision (1)
  • Coronavirus (48)
  • Corporate Negligence (20)
  • Corporate Veil (2)
  • Corporations (6)
  • Correct Name of a Party In Pleadings (1)
  • Court Approval of Settlement (2)
  • Courtroom Etiquette (1)
  • Covenant Not to Compete (1)
  • Coverage Question (10)
  • Coverage Questions (103)
  • Covid-19 (69)
  • Crashworthiness (2)
  • Credentialing File (1)
  • Criminal (13)
  • Criminal Act of Third Person (11)
  • Criminal Acts Exclusions (5)
  • Criminal Charges (13)
  • Criminal Conviction (1)
  • Crimini Falsi Evidence (3)
  • Cross-Claims (2)
  • Cross-Examination (1)
  • Cross-Examination of Experts (20)
  • Crosswalks (1)
  • Cruise Line (1)
  • Cummins (341)
  • Cummins Law (15)
  • Cummins Mediation (47)
  • Cummins Mediation Services (53)
  • Cumulative Expert Testimony (3)
  • Curb (2)
  • Cyber-Bullying (1)
  • Damages (55)
  • Dangerous Dog Law (4)
  • Dangerous Road Conditions (1)
  • Data Breach (2)
  • Daubert Test (1)
  • Dead Body (1)
  • Dead Man' Rule (1)
  • Dead Man's Rule (6)
  • Death of a Plaintiff (2)
  • Death of Defendant (7)
  • Declaratory Judgment Actions (76)
  • Defamation (13)
  • Defamation on the Internet (2)
  • Default Judgment (19)
  • Defense Research Institute (1)
  • Deference Rule (1)
  • Definition of Bodily Injury (2)
  • Delay Damages (21)
  • Delayed Diagnosis (1)
  • Demand for Jury Trial (2)
  • Dental Injury (3)
  • Dental Malpractice (1)
  • Department of Human Services (2)
  • Deposition (42)
  • Deposition of a Doctor (6)
  • Deposition of Claims Representative (5)
  • Deposition Sanctions (4)
  • Depositions At Trial (1)
  • Depositions of Experts (7)
  • Design Defect (8)
  • Destruction/Removal of Trees (2)
  • Detntal Malpractice (1)
  • Dickinson School of Law (3)
  • Diminished Value Claim (1)
  • Direct Action (2)
  • Dirt Bike (2)
  • Disco (1)
  • Discontinuance (5)
  • Discovery Issues (147)
  • Discovery of Claims File (3)
  • Discovery of Financial Worth (3)
  • Discovery of Insurance Information (1)
  • Discovery of Prior Bad Faith Suits Against Carrier (2)
  • Discovery on Discovery Abuses (1)
  • Discovery Rule (15)
  • Discovery Sanctions (10)
  • Disqualification of Counsel (2)
  • Diversity Jurisdiction (9)
  • Divorce (1)
  • Doe (2)
  • Dog Bite (24)
  • Dog Law (6)
  • Domicile (2)
  • Door (1)
  • Dragonetti Act (1)
  • Dram Shop (10)
  • Driveway Immunity Provisions (1)
  • Driving Directions (1)
  • Driving Tips (1)
  • Driving While Intoxicated (11)
  • Drug Manufacturer (1)
  • Drug Overdose (3)
  • Drugs (1)
  • Duty (2)
  • Duty at Intersections (1)
  • Duty of Care Re Adjoining Roadways (2)
  • Duty to Control Conduct of Persons to Protect Others (2)
  • Duty to Cooperate (1)
  • Duty to Defend (16)
  • Duty to Indemnify (20)
  • Duty to Provide Coverage (7)
  • Duty to Read Contract (1)
  • Duty To Remove Vehicle From Road (1)
  • Duty To Watch Where Walking (1)
  • E-Discovery (2)
  • E-Filing (3)
  • Economic Damages (8)
  • Economic Loss Doctrine (2)
  • Economist Experts (1)
  • Electronic Filing (4)
  • Electronic Medical Records (1)
  • Electronically Stored Information (3)
  • Elevator (1)
  • Emails as Evidence (2)
  • Emergency Vehicles (2)
  • Emotional Distress Claims (13)
  • Employee At Will (1)
  • Employee Driving Drunk (3)
  • Employees (3)
  • Employer Auto Insurance Coverage (2)
  • Employer-Employee Liability (8)
  • Employer's Liability Exclusion (1)
  • Employers (3)
  • Employment Discrimination (5)
  • Employment Law (7)
  • EMR (1)
  • Enforce Subpoenas (1)
  • Enterprise Liability (1)
  • Entrustment Exclusion (1)
  • Entry of Appearance (1)
  • ERISA Plan (1)
  • Errata Sheet (1)
  • ESI (2)
  • Ethics (3)
  • Event Data Recorder (1)
  • Evidence (33)
  • Evidence of Governmental Standards (1)
  • Evidence of Industry Standards (2)
  • Evidence of Insurance (6)
  • Evidence of Marijuana Use (1)
  • Evidence of Prior Accidents or Injuries (1)
  • Evidence of Risks and Complications of Surgery (1)
  • Evidence of Settlement Negotiations (7)
  • Exceptions to Hearsay Rule (4)
  • Excess Liability Policy (2)
  • Excess Verdict (2)
  • Excessive Force (9)
  • Exculpatory Release (17)
  • Expert (7)
  • Expert Fees (2)
  • Expert on Causation (19)
  • Expert Report Deadlines (6)
  • Expert Testimony on Future Medical Care (3)
  • Experts (139)
  • Express Warranty (1)
  • Facebook Admissibility at Trial (6)
  • Facebook Discovery (55)
  • Factual Cause (5)
  • Failure to Join Indispensable Parties (1)
  • Failure to Promptly Report Claim (1)
  • Failure to Warn (4)
  • Fair Scope of Expert Report (13)
  • Fair Share Act (13)
  • Fall Asleep at Wheel (2)
  • Falling Items in Store (2)
  • False Arrest (1)
  • False Documents (1)
  • False Light Claim (1)
  • False Testimony (1)
  • Family Member Under Auto Policy (1)
  • Faulty Workmanship (1)
  • Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (1)
  • Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction (1)
  • Federal Court Vacancies (1)
  • Federal Employers' Liability Act (1)
  • Federal Healthcare Quality and Improvement Act of 1986 (1)
  • Federal Preemption (1)
  • Federal Tort Claims Act (1)
  • FELA (4)
  • Ferris Bueller (1)
  • Fetal Pain and Suffering (1)
  • Fibromyalgia (4)
  • Fiduciary Duty (3)
  • Fight (1)
  • Fight on Premises (3)
  • Filial Consortium Claims (1)
  • Financial Bias of Experts (4)
  • Fire Loss (5)
  • Fire Scene (1)
  • First Manifestation Rule (1)
  • First Party Benefits (31)
  • Fishing Expeditions in Discovery (2)
  • Fitness Club (2)
  • Fitting Platform (1)
  • Fleet Policy (3)
  • Food Poisoning (1)
  • Football (2)
  • Foreign Corporation (11)
  • Foreign Object in Food (1)
  • Forgery (1)
  • Forrest Gump (14)
  • Forum Non Conveniens (26)
  • Forum Selection Clause (7)
  • Fraternity (7)
  • Fraud (6)
  • Fraud Upon the Court (1)
  • Fraudulent Concealment (2)
  • Fraudulent Joinder of Defendants (3)
  • FRCP 54 Motion for Permission to Appeal (1)
  • Free Law Project (1)
  • Frye Standard (2)
  • Future Lost Wages (4)
  • Future Medical Expenses (24)
  • General Jurisdiction (25)
  • General Verdict Rule (1)
  • General-Verdict Rule (2)
  • Gist of the Action Doctrine (13)
  • Godfather (12)
  • Good Samaritan (1)
  • Governmental Immunity (8)
  • Governor Wolf (1)
  • GPS Use While Driving (1)
  • Grabbing Steering Wheel (1)
  • Grammar (1)
  • Gross Negligence (3)
  • Guardrails (1)
  • Guiderails (4)
  • Guns (1)
  • Gym (6)
  • Handrails (1)
  • Harmless Error (1)
  • Hazing (4)
  • Healthcare Quality Improvement Act (1)
  • Hearsay (9)
  • Heart and Lung Benefits (3)
  • Hills and Ridges Doctrine (42)
  • Hip Implant (1)
  • HMO's (1)
  • Homeowner's Association (4)
  • Homeowner's Insurance (19)
  • Horizontal Liability (1)
  • Hostile Witness (1)
  • Household Exclusion (76)
  • Humor (3)
  • Ice (19)
  • Identification of Defense Counsel At Trial (3)
  • Identity of Defendant (1)
  • IME (31)
  • Immunity (14)
  • Impeachment (2)
  • Implied Warranty (1)
  • implied warranty of habitability (2)
  • Implied Warranty of Merchantability (1)
  • Improper Venue (30)
  • In Camera Review (1)
  • In Loco Parentis (2)
  • In Pari Delicto (2)
  • Inconsistent Verdict (1)
  • Indemnification Claims (3)
  • Indemnification Clause (4)
  • Independent Contractor (1)
  • Independent Medical Examinations (36)
  • Independent Psychiatric Examinations (28)
  • Industrial Accident (1)
  • Industry Standards Evidence (2)
  • Informed Consent (4)
  • Inherent Risk (2)
  • Inmate (1)
  • Inquiry Notice (1)
  • Insomnia (1)
  • Instagram (1)
  • Insurance Agency (3)
  • Insurance Agent (8)
  • Insurance Broker (1)
  • Insurance Defense (8)
  • Insurance Fraud (1)
  • Intended User (1)
  • Intentional Acts Exclusion (6)
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (6)
  • Intentional Misrepresentation (1)
  • Interest (1)
  • Interlocutory Orders/Appeals (10)
  • Internet Defamation (2)
  • Intervene in an Action (4)
  • Intoxication (14)
  • Intrusion on Seclusion (1)
  • Invasion of Privacy (1)
  • Investment Management Company (1)
  • Invitee (3)
  • IOLTA Accounts (1)
  • Issue Preclusion (1)
  • Jane Doe (4)
  • John Doe (4)
  • Joinder of Additional Defendant (7)
  • Joint Tortfeasor Release (3)
  • Joint Tortfeasors (3)
  • Joint Venture (1)
  • Judge Amesbury (7)
  • Judge Bisignani-Moyle (3)
  • Judge Brann (30)
  • Judge Burke (7)
  • Judge Caputo (30)
  • Judge Carlson (1)
  • Judge Chelak (8)
  • Judge Conaboy (10)
  • Judge Conner (1)
  • Judge Connor (2)
  • Judge Cosgrove (5)
  • Judge Domalakes (1)
  • Judge Donohue (1)
  • Judge Gartley (5)
  • Judge Gaughan (1)
  • Judge Gelb (9)
  • Judge Gibbons (29)
  • Judge Goodman (3)
  • Judge Gray (6)
  • Judge Hamill (1)
  • Judge Harold A. Thomson (8)
  • Judge Hertzberg (2)
  • Judge Higgins (6)
  • Judge Hughes (6)
  • Judge James (1)
  • Judge James M. Munley (4)
  • Judge Jarbola (1)
  • Judge John E. Jones (1)
  • Judge Jones (3)
  • Judge Julia K. Munley (3)
  • Judge Kameen (2)
  • Judge Klein (1)
  • Judge Kosik (11)
  • Judge Leeson (13)
  • Judge Legg (2)
  • Judge Mannion (27)
  • Judge Mariani (26)
  • Judge Mark (1)
  • Judge Mazzoni (18)
  • Judge McFadden (1)
  • Judge Mehalchick (7)
  • Judge Michael Toole (12)
  • Judge Miller (1)
  • Judge Minora (67)
  • Judge Munley (16)
  • Judge Nanovic (4)
  • Judge Nealon (316)
  • Judge O'Brien (1)
  • Judge Pierantoni (3)
  • Judge Polachek-Gartley (4)
  • Judge Quinones Alejandro (1)
  • Judge Richard Conaboy (1)
  • Judge Saporito (6)
  • Judge Savage (1)
  • Judge Shurtleff (1)
  • Judge Sibum (18)
  • Judge Stevens (4)
  • Judge Strassberger (1)
  • Judge Thomson (5)
  • Judge Van Jura (6)
  • Judge Vanaskie (7)
  • Judge Vough (3)
  • Judge Wallitsch (1)
  • Judge Wecht (3)
  • Judge Wettick (10)
  • Judge William Nealon (2)
  • Judge Williamson (74)
  • Judge Zulick (28)
  • Judges (1)
  • Judgment Non Pros (8)
  • Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (4)
  • Judicial Admission (2)
  • Judicial Candidates (4)
  • Judicial Retirement Age (1)
  • Jurisdiction (10)
  • Jurisdiction By Registration in PA (4)
  • Jury (1)
  • Jury Instructions (18)
  • Jury Note Taking (2)
  • Jury Questions During Deliberations (1)
  • Jury Selection (21)
  • Jury Size (2)
  • Jury Trials (5)
  • Jury Verdicts (37)
  • Justice Wecht (7)
  • Knee Replacement (1)
  • Koke (1)
  • Koken (187)
  • Lack of Cooperation (1)
  • Lackaa Pro Bono (1)
  • Lackawanna Bar Association (3)
  • Lackawanna County (21)
  • Lackawanna Pro Bono (37)
  • Ladders (1)
  • Landlord Out-of-Possession (4)
  • Landlord/Tenant (11)
  • Landscaping (1)
  • Law of the Case Doctrine (1)
  • Law Practice Management (3)
  • Lay Opinion on Speed (2)
  • Lay Witness Testimony (6)
  • Learned Intermediary Doctrine (1)
  • Learned Treatise (3)
  • Learner's Permit (1)
  • Leash Law (1)
  • Left Turn (1)
  • Legal (1)
  • Legal History (1)
  • Legal Malpractice (9)
  • Legal Malpractice Claims (8)
  • Legal Research (6)
  • Legal Writing (12)
  • Letters Rogatory (1)
  • Liability Credit for UIM Carrier (3)
  • Liability of a Claims Representative (1)
  • Liability of Mental Health Professionals (3)
  • Liability of Spouse for Acts by Other Spouse (1)
  • Liberal Construction of Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
  • Licensee (3)
  • Liens (8)
  • Life Care Plan Expert (1)
  • Life Expectancy (2)
  • Limit of Protection Clause (1)
  • Limitation of Actions Provision (5)
  • Limited Tort (38)
  • Liquor Liability Exclusion (1)
  • Litigation Tips (12)
  • Locating Parties or Witnesses (1)
  • Lokuta (2)
  • Long Arm Statute (7)
  • Loss of Consortium (3)
  • Luzerne County (82)
  • Luzerne County Local Rules (1)
  • Lyft (2)
  • Magisterial District Courts (2)
  • Malfunction Theory (1)
  • Malicious Prosecution (2)
  • Manufacturing Defect (7)
  • Marijuana (2)
  • Mask (1)
  • Material Misrepresentations (4)
  • MCARE Act (18)
  • med (1)
  • Mediation (6)
  • Mediation Privilege (1)
  • Medical Marijuana (3)
  • Medical Devices (7)
  • Medical Event Defense (2)
  • Medical Malpractice (196)
  • Medical Malpractice Defendant as Expert (1)
  • Medical Marijuana (5)
  • Medical Practice Act (1)
  • Medical Records (4)
  • Medical Tests (1)
  • Medicare Set-Asides (8)
  • Medicare/Medicaid (28)
  • Medicine (1)
  • Mental Health Procedures Act (5)
  • Mentally Unstable Persons (5)
  • Mention of Insurance At Trial (3)
  • Mere Happening of Accident Not Negligence (1)
  • Methodology of Expert Opinion (3)
  • Microorganism Exclusion (1)
  • Ministerial Exception (1)
  • Misdiagnosis (1)
  • Missing Stop Sign (3)
  • Mistake in Complaint (1)
  • Mistrial (1)
  • Misuse of a Product (4)
  • Mock Trial (65)
  • Monroe County (4)
  • Morgue (1)
  • Motion Alternative Service (1)
  • Motion for Continuance (3)
  • Motion for Protective Order (2)
  • Motion for Reconsideration (4)
  • Motion for Recusal (7)
  • Motion to Abate (1)
  • Motion to Amend (10)
  • Motion to Coordinate Actions (1)
  • Motion to Quash Subpoenas (1)
  • Motion to Remand (6)
  • Motor Vehicle Exception to Tort Claims Act (3)
  • Motorcycle (11)
  • Mudano Rule (3)
  • Multiple Accidents (1)
  • Multiple Defense Counsel at Trial (1)
  • Multiple Trigger Theory of Liability (1)
  • Municipal Liability (7)
  • Named Driver Exclusion (3)
  • Named Driver Only Policy (3)
  • Nanty-Glo Rule (1)
  • Negligence Claim Against Claims Adjuster/Representative (1)
  • Negligence of Security Company (1)
  • Negligence Per Se (12)
  • Negligent Entrustment (15)
  • Negligent Hiring (5)
  • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (31)
  • Negligent Retention (3)
  • Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Claim (1)
  • Negligent Supervision (7)
  • Neighbors (1)
  • Networking (2)
  • Neuropsychological Review (12)
  • Neutral Arbitrator (1)
  • New Jersey Automobile Reparation Reform Act (1)
  • New Matter (8)
  • No Duty Rule (8)
  • No Felony Conviction Rule (1)
  • No-Duty Rule (2)
  • Non-Precedential Decisions (1)
  • Nonsuit (2)
  • Northeastern Pennsylvania (14)
  • Notes by Investigator (1)
  • Notice Defense (8)
  • Notice to Attend Trial (2)
  • Notice to Governmental Agency Defendant (3)
  • Nuisance (2)
  • Nurse Practitioner (1)
  • Nursing Homes (14)
  • Obama (8)
  • Obamacare (3)
  • Objections at Depositions (5)
  • Objections at Trial (1)
  • Occupying a Vehicle (1)
  • Occurrence (1)
  • Occurrence Rule (1)
  • Online Marketers (2)
  • Open and Obvious Danger (7)
  • Opening Default Judgment (16)
  • Opening Statements (1)
  • Opinion of Treating Doctor (12)
  • Opioids (2)
  • Oral Argument (1)
  • Original Sources Exception (1)
  • Ostensible Agency (8)
  • Out-of-Possession Landlord (9)
  • Paid or Payable (1)
  • Parent (3)
  • Parent-Subsidiary (1)
  • Parental Liability for Acts of Child (1)
  • Parking Lot (3)
  • Party Opponent Exclusion to Hearsay Rule (2)
  • Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act (4)
  • Patient Safety Reports (1)
  • Peculiar Risk Exception (2)
  • Pedestrians (4)
  • Peer Review (22)
  • Peer Review Protection Act (13)
  • Peer-to-Peer Car Share Rentals (1)
  • Pelvic Mesh (3)
  • Penalty for Driving Uninsured (2)
  • Pending Criminal Charges (8)
  • PennDOT (15)
  • Pennsylvania Defense Institute (62)
  • Pennsylvania Emergency Management Services Code (2)
  • Pennsylvania Law Weekly (2)
  • Pennsylvania State Police (3)
  • Pennsylvania Superior Court (1)
  • Pennsylvania Supreme Court (1)
  • Personal Care Home (1)
  • Personal Jurisdiction (37)
  • Petition to Enforce Settlement (6)
  • Petition to Withdraw as Counsel (1)
  • Philadelphia Eagles (1)
  • Photographs (2)
  • Physical Therapists (1)
  • Physician's Assistants (1)
  • Piercing the Corporate Veil (1)
  • Pike County (13)
  • PIP Claims (2)
  • PIP Exams (2)
  • Pitbulls (4)
  • Pleadings (45)
  • Podiatric Malpractice (2)
  • Podiatrist (2)
  • Points for Charge (1)
  • POlice (4)
  • Police Pursuit (7)
  • Police Reports (7)
  • Policy Exclusions (11)
  • Polisher (1)
  • Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (16)
  • Pollution Event Coverage (2)
  • Post (1)
  • Post Office (1)
  • Post-Concussion Syndrome (1)
  • Post-Injury Release Agreement (1)
  • Post-Koken (198)
  • Post-Koken Jury Instructions (4)
  • Post-Koken Trial Procedure (9)
  • Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (1)
  • Post-Trial Motions (2)
  • Postal Truck (1)
  • Pothole (2)
  • Pothole Exception (2)
  • Powerpoint (3)
  • Practice of law (26)
  • Practice Tips (93)
  • Prayer for Relief (1)
  • Pre-Complaint Discovery (3)
  • Preclusion of Expert (32)
  • Preliminary Objection - Impertinent Matter (2)
  • Preliminary Objections (1)
  • Premise (1)
  • Premises Liability (217)
  • Prescription Medical Device (3)
  • Present Value of Future Medical Costs (1)
  • Preserving Issues on Appeal (2)
  • Preserving Objections (4)
  • Prior Bad Acts (1)
  • Prior Convictions (1)
  • Private Nuisance (1)
  • Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (11)
  • Production of Photographs in Discovery (1)
  • Productivity (1)
  • Products Liability (125)
  • Professional Courtesy (21)
  • Professionalis (1)
  • Professionalism (38)
  • Promissory Estoppel (2)
  • Property Damages (11)
  • Property Insurance Coverage (14)
  • Property Owners Association (1)
  • Protective Order (3)
  • Proximate Causation (17)
  • Psychiatrist Liability (3)
  • Psychiatrist-Patient Privilege (2)
  • Psychologist Liability (2)
  • PTSD (1)
  • Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (3)
  • Public Nuisance (1)
  • Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (1)
  • Public Schools (1)
  • Punitive Damages (156)
  • Punitive Damages Financial Worth Discovery (8)
  • Qualifications of Expert (2)
  • Qualified Immunity (4)
  • Quantum Meruit Recovery (1)
  • Quash Appeal (1)
  • Rabies Act (1)
  • Real Estate Exception to Immunity (4)
  • Real Estate Transactions (1)
  • Real Property Exception (1)
  • Rear End Collision (1)
  • Recklessness (83)
  • Records Custodian (1)
  • Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (3)
  • Recusal (5)
  • Reduce Stress (2)
  • Reformation of Insurance Policy (1)
  • Refusal of Medical Tests (1)
  • Regular Use Exclusion (36)
  • Regularly Used Non-Owned Exclusion (35)
  • Rehabilitation Act (1)
  • Reinsurance (1)
  • Relation Back Doctrine (2)
  • Releases (40)
  • Remand to State Court (27)
  • Remittitur (8)
  • Remote Court Proceedings (1)
  • Removal to Federal Court (25)
  • Rental Vehicle (2)
  • Reply to New Matter (2)
  • Request For Court Reporter (1)
  • Requests for Admissions (4)
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur (8)
  • Res Judicata (2)
  • Rescue Doctrine (1)
  • Reservation of Rights Letter (5)
  • Reserves (1)
  • Residency (6)
  • Resident Relative (4)
  • Residential Construction (1)
  • Residents Association (1)
  • Respondeat Superior Liability (4)
  • Restrictive Covenant (1)
  • Retained Control Exception (3)
  • Retroactive Application of Case Law (1)
  • Retroactivity of Law (1)
  • Right To Jury Trial (1)
  • Right-To-Know Law (1)
  • Risk-Uitility Test (2)
  • Risks of Surgery (1)
  • Romney (1)
  • Rule 126 (1)
  • Rule 1925 (1)
  • Rules of Professional Conduct (5)
  • Rules of the Road (1)
  • Sackett (9)
  • Sanctions (11)
  • Sanctions for Delayed Payment of Settlement Funds (1)
  • Scandalous and Impertinent Matter (1)
  • Schools (1)
  • Scope of Examination of Witness at Trial (4)
  • Sealing Judicial Record (2)
  • Sealing the Settlement (4)
  • Seat Belt Defense (7)
  • Second Deposition (2)
  • Section 1983 (19)
  • Self-Driven Vehicles (3)
  • Self-Incrimination (10)
  • Sentinel Event Report (2)
  • SEPTA (1)
  • Service Dogs (1)
  • Service of Process (46)
  • Settled Defendants (2)
  • Settlement Negotiations (16)
  • Settlements (18)
  • Sexual Abuse Claims (2)
  • Sexual Assault (2)
  • Shocks the Conscience (4)
  • Shooting Case (4)
  • Short Story (1)
  • Sidewalk Exception (1)
  • Single Entity Liability (1)
  • Single Satisfaction Doctrine (1)
  • Site Inspections (1)
  • Skier's Responsibility Act (6)
  • Skiing (14)
  • Slander (1)
  • Sliding Door (1)
  • Slip and Fall (132)
  • Smoke Detectors (1)
  • Snap Removal to Federal Court (1)
  • Snow (14)
  • Snow Falling From Roof (1)
  • Snow Removal Contractor (5)
  • Snow Tubing (6)
  • Snowboarding (2)
  • Snowmobile (1)
  • Social Host Liability (6)
  • Social Media Evidence (9)
  • Social Networking Sites (78)
  • Social Security Disability (3)
  • Sovereign Immunity (9)
  • Speaking Objections (1)
  • Special Damages (1)
  • Special Needs Trusts (1)
  • Specific Jurisdiction (11)
  • Speed (2)
  • Speed Bump (1)
  • Spoliation of Evidence (31)
  • Stacking (66)
  • Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment Hearsay Exception (2)
  • Statute of Limitations (85)
  • Statute of Limitations-Bad Faith Claim (1)
  • Statute of Limitations-UIM Claim (5)
  • Statute of Limitations-UM Claim (2)
  • Statute of Repose (4)
  • Statutory Caps (2)
  • Statutory Employer (4)
  • Stop Signs (2)
  • Storm Damage (1)
  • Stream of Commerce Jurisdiction (1)
  • Stream of Commerce Personal Jurisdiction (3)
  • Streets Exception (1)
  • Strict Liability (98)
  • Striking Default Judgment (9)
  • Student Athl (1)
  • Student Athletes (1)
  • Student Suicide (2)
  • Subpoena To Attend and Testify (3)
  • Subpoenas (7)
  • Subrogation (16)
  • subsequent remedial measures (2)
  • Substitution of Estate for Deceased Party (3)
  • Sudden Emergency (13)
  • Sudden Medical Emergency (1)
  • Sudden Stoppage on Road (1)
  • Suicide (7)
  • Summer Camp (1)
  • Supersedeas (1)
  • Superseding Cause (1)
  • Supplemental Deposition (1)
  • Supreme Court (2)
  • Surveillance (12)
  • Survival Action (10)
  • Swimming Pool (1)
  • Termination (1)
  • Testimony by Police Officer (1)
  • Testimony on Speed (2)
  • Texting (2)
  • Third Circuit (2)
  • Third Party Bad Faith (2)
  • Title Insurance (1)
  • To A Reasonable Degree of Certainty (1)
  • Tolling Provisions (1)
  • Tort Claims Act (8)
  • Tort Reform (2)
  • Tort Talk (171)
  • Tort Talk Tip (5)
  • Tortious Interference of a Corpse (1)
  • Tortious Interference with Contracts (4)
  • Toxicologist (2)
  • Trade Secrets (1)
  • Traffic Citations (3)
  • Trampoline Park (1)
  • Transfer of Venue (50)
  • Transient Rub of Life (4)
  • Traveling Employee (1)
  • Treating Physicians (9)
  • Treble Damages (1)
  • Tree Stand (1)
  • Trees (6)
  • Trespass (5)
  • Trespasser (1)
  • Trespassers (4)
  • Trial (10)
  • Trial Practice (1)
  • Trip and Fall (77)
  • Trivial Defect Doctrine (17)
  • Trucking Accident (35)
  • Trump (1)
  • Twitter (2)
  • Two Schools of Thought Defense (1)
  • Twombly/Iqbal Standards (6)
  • U-Turns (1)
  • U.S. Supreme Court (4)
  • Uber (7)
  • Uber and Lyft (10)
  • UIM (467)
  • UIM Benefits Set-Off (8)
  • UIM Exhaustion Clauses (8)
  • UIM Rejection Form (27)
  • UIM Sign Down Forms (10)
  • UM (146)
  • UM Rejection Form (7)
  • UM Sign Down Forms (1)
  • Umbrella Policy (3)
  • Unconscionability of Contract/Arbitration Agreement (2)
  • Under (1)
  • underinsured motorists benefits (23)
  • Underinsured Motorists Claims (446)
  • Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act (1)
  • Unfair Insurance Practices Act (3)
  • Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (15)
  • Unin (1)
  • Uninsured Motorists Benefits Statute of Limitations (1)
  • Uninsured Motorists Claims (144)
  • United States Supreme Court (1)
  • Unlicensed Driver Exclusion (1)
  • Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion (3)
  • Unreasonable Search and Seizure (4)
  • Valet Service (2)
  • Vandalism (1)
  • Vehicle Damage Photos (1)
  • Venue (61)
  • Verdict Slip (1)
  • Verdicts (13)
  • Verification to Complaint (1)
  • Veterinary Malpractice (1)
  • Vexatious Conduct (1)
  • Vicarious Liability (18)
  • Video of Accident (3)
  • Video Surveillance (6)
  • Videotaped Depositions (1)
  • Virus Exclusion (10)
  • Visibly Intoxicated (5)
  • Vocational Experts (7)
  • Voir Dire (20)
  • Voluntary Manslaughter (1)
  • Wage Loss Claims (6)
  • Waiver (16)
  • Waiver Forms (39)
  • Waiver of Issues On Appeal (5)
  • Waiver of Privilege At Trial (1)
  • Walking Backwards (1)
  • Warnings (5)
  • Water Park (2)
  • Watercraft Exclusion (1)
  • Wave (1)
  • Wave-on Liability (1)
  • Waving Motorist (1)
  • Wet Floor Sign (1)
  • Wheelchair (1)
  • Wilkes Law School (2)
  • Witnesses (3)
  • Work Injury (1)
  • Workers' Compensation (30)
  • Writ of Summons (1)
  • Wrong Defendant Sued (4)
  • Wrongful Death (14)
  • Wrongful Discharge (2)
  • Wyoming County (1)
  • Zero Verdict (14)
  • Zoom (8)

DISCLAIMER

Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire publishes this site for general informational purposes only. The materials in this website do not constitute legal advice, do necessarily reflect the opinions of the CUMMINS LAW law firm or its members, are not an indicator of future results, and are not guaranteed to be current, up-to-date, or applicable to your circumstances. Under no circumstances should you rely upon the information contained in this website without first seeking out and securing your own attorney. This website and the transmission is not in any way intended, and does not operate, to create an attorney-client relationship with any person or entity. No attorney-client relationship will be created with Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire or the CUMMINS LAW law firm unless and until you have purposefully sought to retain us, we have had a chance to clear any conflicts, and you receive a letter from us confirming the creation of an attorney-client relationship and explaining the parameters of the relationship. It is also noted that Attorney Daniel E. Cummins and the CUMMINS LAW law firm only practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. With respect to the links on this website, they are not intended as referrals to, or endorsements of, those linked sites. Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor the CUMMINS LAW law firm can guarantee that the material accessible from this website will be virus free. In creating this website, Daniel E. Cummins and the CUMMINS LAW law firm have strived to comply with all legal and ethical requirements. Neither Daniel E. Cummins nor the CUMMINS LAW law firm or its members intend to practice law in any jurisidiction where they are not licensed to practice. Daniel E. Cummins and the CUMMINS LAW law firm DISCLAIM ALL EXPRESS WARRANTIES AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.