Here is a LINK to a recent article entitled "Restatement Rift Remains as Bar Awaits Tincher Ruling" written by Saranac Hale Spencer, P.J. D'Annunzio, and Max Mitchell in The Legal Intelligencer on the current status of the Restatement (Second) versus (Third) debate in Pennsylvania products liability cases. As you will see, reporter Max Mitchell contacted me for comments on the issue.
We continue to await the Pennsylvania Supreme Court highly anticipated decision on this all-important issue in the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex.
If you are not able to access the article via the Link, please let me know (dancummins@comcast.net) and I will email you a copy.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Pennsylvania Superior Court Rejects UIM Rejection Form as Ambiguous
In
a memorandum opinion handed down last week in the case of Bricker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,
No. 102 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Aug. 22, 2014 Lazarus, Wecht, Musmanno, J.) (non-precedential
memorandum by Lazarus, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the validity
of an underinsured motorist rejection (UIM) form.
Under Pennsylvania law, auto insurance carriers are required to offer UIM coverage with every policy sold. Policyholders are not required to purchase UIM coverage but, in order to opt out, must execute a valid rejection of UIM coverage form mandated by law. Deviations from the statutory requirements of the UIM rejection form will render the rejection invalid. Without a valid rejection form on file, the insured will be deemed not to have rejected such coverage.
The insured in the Bricker case argued that the rejection form was not valid because the form referred to a different policy number and thus could not meet the mandatory “this policy” language required by Section 1731 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law [MVFRL].
The Superior Court reiterated the rule in Pennsylvania that any “deviations from the specific statutory requirements in the wording or procedures surrounding the UIM rejection form will render it void.” Mem. Op. at p. 7.
The court noted that the UIM form at issue appeared to be valid since it met all of the statutory requirements in that it contained the mandatory statutory language, the form was written on a separate sheet of paper, and the form had the insured’s dated signature.
However, the Superior Court nevertheless ruled in favor of the insured and found coverage due to the ambiguity created by the inclusion of the incorrect policy number in the form. Since there was an ambiguity in the form, the coverage question was construed in favor of the insured. The rejection of UIM form was ultimately found to be invalid and the insured was deemed to be entitled to UIM coverage.
Anyone wishing to secure a copy of this Opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for forwarding this case to my attention.
I note that Attorney Scott Cooper is set to be a featured speaker at the fast-approaching
September 26, 2014 Tort Talk Expo 2014 and is slated to present on Bad Faith
Issues in Post-Koken matters.
Under Pennsylvania law, auto insurance carriers are required to offer UIM coverage with every policy sold. Policyholders are not required to purchase UIM coverage but, in order to opt out, must execute a valid rejection of UIM coverage form mandated by law. Deviations from the statutory requirements of the UIM rejection form will render the rejection invalid. Without a valid rejection form on file, the insured will be deemed not to have rejected such coverage.
The insured in the Bricker case argued that the rejection form was not valid because the form referred to a different policy number and thus could not meet the mandatory “this policy” language required by Section 1731 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law [MVFRL].
The Superior Court reiterated the rule in Pennsylvania that any “deviations from the specific statutory requirements in the wording or procedures surrounding the UIM rejection form will render it void.” Mem. Op. at p. 7.
The court noted that the UIM form at issue appeared to be valid since it met all of the statutory requirements in that it contained the mandatory statutory language, the form was written on a separate sheet of paper, and the form had the insured’s dated signature.
However, the Superior Court nevertheless ruled in favor of the insured and found coverage due to the ambiguity created by the inclusion of the incorrect policy number in the form. Since there was an ambiguity in the form, the coverage question was construed in favor of the insured. The rejection of UIM form was ultimately found to be invalid and the insured was deemed to be entitled to UIM coverage.
Anyone wishing to secure a copy of this Opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer for forwarding this case to my attention.
 |
| Scott Cooper, Esq. Schmidt Kramer |
To view
the Agenda for this CLE seminar (3 Substantive and 1 Ethics Credit), please
click Here.
To register online, please click HERE. You may also contact me at dancummins@comcast.net for more information on Registration.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
New Trial on Damages Granted in Luzerne County Zero Verdict Case
In Coopey v. City of Wilkes-Barre, No. 5855 of 2009 (C.P. Luz. Co. July 31, 2014 Hughes, J.), Judge Richard M. Hughes, III of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas issued a detailed Opinion addressing post-trial motions in an auto accident case in which the jury found both the Plaintiff and Defendant drivers negligent, but neither of the parties' negligence to be a substantial factor in causing the injuries alleged.
After finding circumstantial evidence of uncontroverted evidence that the Plaintiff sustained some form of injuries as a result of the accident, Judge Hughes ordered a new trial limited to the issue of damages.
A distinguishing fact in this case, differentiating it from other zero verdict personal injury matters, was that the defense did not present expert medical testimony at trial, but rather contested the Plaintiff's claims of spinal injuries through cross-examination and argument focusing on the alleged pre-existing nature of the Plaintiff's spinal conditions.
The court noted in its Opinion that there was no substantial contesting by the defense of the Plaintff's separate claims of head, thumb, and knee injuries.
While Judge Hughes noted that an "agreement between medical experts as to the existence of an injury sufficient to constitute uncontroverted evidence, but not necessary. In other words, circumstances may arise that present uncontroverted evidence of an injury without an agreement between parties' experts" Op. at p. 6.
While acknowledging that a jury had a right to believe all, some, or none of the testimony offered by a witness, the court found that a jury could not reject testimony where the resultant verdict turns out to be "so disproportionate to uncontested evidence as to defy common sense and logic." Op. at p. 10.
Here, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff on the head, thumb, and knee injuries were found by the court not to have been rebutted by the defense through a cross-examination of the Plaintiff's medical expert or otherwise. Accordingly, the court ruled that the jury's defense verdict under the circumstances presented shocked one's sense of justice and that the Plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on damages.
I note that Judge Hughes is scheduled to speak at the upcoming TORT TALK EXPO 2014 set for September 26, 2014 at the Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel in Wilkes-Barre, PA. Click HERE for an Agenda and HERE for online Registration.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
I send thanks to Attorney John Aciukewicz of Wilkes-Barre, PA for bringing this case to my attention.
 |
| Judge Richard M. Hughes, III Luzerne County |
A distinguishing fact in this case, differentiating it from other zero verdict personal injury matters, was that the defense did not present expert medical testimony at trial, but rather contested the Plaintiff's claims of spinal injuries through cross-examination and argument focusing on the alleged pre-existing nature of the Plaintiff's spinal conditions.
The court noted in its Opinion that there was no substantial contesting by the defense of the Plaintff's separate claims of head, thumb, and knee injuries.
While Judge Hughes noted that an "agreement between medical experts as to the existence of an injury sufficient to constitute uncontroverted evidence, but not necessary. In other words, circumstances may arise that present uncontroverted evidence of an injury without an agreement between parties' experts" Op. at p. 6.
While acknowledging that a jury had a right to believe all, some, or none of the testimony offered by a witness, the court found that a jury could not reject testimony where the resultant verdict turns out to be "so disproportionate to uncontested evidence as to defy common sense and logic." Op. at p. 10.
Here, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff on the head, thumb, and knee injuries were found by the court not to have been rebutted by the defense through a cross-examination of the Plaintiff's medical expert or otherwise. Accordingly, the court ruled that the jury's defense verdict under the circumstances presented shocked one's sense of justice and that the Plaintiff was entitled to a new trial on damages.
I note that Judge Hughes is scheduled to speak at the upcoming TORT TALK EXPO 2014 set for September 26, 2014 at the Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel in Wilkes-Barre, PA. Click HERE for an Agenda and HERE for online Registration.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
I send thanks to Attorney John Aciukewicz of Wilkes-Barre, PA for bringing this case to my attention.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
DOOR PRIZES/RAFFLE PRIZES: The Tort Talk Expo 2014 Is A Month Away: RESERVE YOUR SPOT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
PLEASE SAVE THE DATE
September 26, 2014
TORT TALK EXPO 2014
Mohegan Sun Casino and Hotel
Wilkes-Barre, PA
(3 Substantive, 1 Ethics Credit)
[REGISTRATION: 11:30 am - Noon]
PROGRAM TO INCLUDE:
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
"Back to School"
A TORT TALK AUTO LAW/CIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE
by
Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
FOLEY, COMERFORD & CUMMINS
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
BAD FAITH UPDATE
by
Timothy G. Lenahan, Esq.
LENAHAN & DEMPSEY
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER
Neil T. O'Donnell, Esq.
O'DONNELL LAW OFFICES
Moderator: Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
FOLEY, COMERFORD & CUMMINS
{BREAK: 2:00 pm - 2:15 pm}
2:15 pm - 3:15 pm
MEDICAL HOUR
with
Dr. Lucian Bednarz - Physiatrist - on RSD
and
Dr. Paul Horchos - Physiatrist - on Post-concussion Syndrome
NORTHEASTERN REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES
{BREAK: 3:15 pm - 3:30 pm}
3:30 pm - 4:30 pm
VIEW FROM THE BENCH
Ethical Considerations
for
Settlement Conferences
and
Jury Selection
Moderator: Paul Oven, Esq.
Dougherty, Leventhal & Price
JUDICIAL PANELISTS
Pennsylvania Superior Judge Court David N. Wecht
Luzerne County Judge Richard M. Hughes,
Lackawanna County Judge A. James Gibbons
U.S. Federal Middle District Court Judge Malachy E. Mannion
U.S. Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick
4:30 pm - 6 pm
POST-SEMINAR COCKTAIL RECEPTION
THIS YEAR'S CLE SEMINAR WILL BE HELD IN A BALLROOM IN THE NEW HOTEL and SPA AREA AT THE MOHEGAN SUN
TABLE VENDOR SPONSORS TO DATE (Alphabetical):
At The Scene
Courtside Documents
Exhibit A
FindLaw/THOMPSON REUTERS
Helbig Mediation & Arbitration
LexisNexis
Medical Legal Reproductions
Network Deposition Services
Northeastern Rehabilitation Associates
RecordTrak
Robson Forensic
The Center for Forensic Economic Studies
The MCS Group
As in the past, there will again be door prizes and raffle prizes.
Vendor tables are still available on first-come, first-serve basis. Other sponsorship/advertising opportunities available for service providers in the CLE written materials for service providers. (contact Dan Cummins at dancummins@comcast.net for more details).
NEW this year will be the availability of a block of HOTEL ROOMS at the NEW Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel and Spa located on the property.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER ONLINE
or mail check made out to "Tort Talk" ($195 for attorneys and $25 for claims professionals) and below form to:
Daniel E. Cummins
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
NAME: ___________________________________________________
FIRM/COMPANY: _________________________________________
EMAIL: ___________________________________________________
CLICK HERE TO BOOK A HOTEL ROOM
or mail check made out to "Tort Talk" ($195 for attorneys and $25 for claims professionals) and below form to:
Daniel E. Cummins
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
NAME: ___________________________________________________
FIRM/COMPANY: _________________________________________
EMAIL: ___________________________________________________
CLICK HERE TO BOOK A HOTEL ROOM
In the meantime, please consider marking your calendar to attend the Tort Talk Expo 2014 on the afternoon of:
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
Monday, August 25, 2014
No Respondeat Superior Liability For Criminal Acts of Employees
According to the Opinion, after a taxi ride, the Plaintiff
attempted to flee and avoid paying a fare after a taxi ride when he was
restrained by a bystander and then kicked and punched by the taxi driver. The Plaintiff was transported to a nearby
hospital where a diagnostic study revealed a hairline fracture of his jaw.
The Plaintiff sued WGM Transportation, the employer of the
taxi driver, on a theory of respondeat superior.
The employer filed Preliminary Objections arguing that an
employer was not liable for an assault and battery by an employee upon another
as such conduct was beyond the scope of the employment. The employer also noted that the employee
committed an act involving the use of force which was excessive and so
dangerous as to leave the employer totally without responsibility.
The trial court sustained the Preliminary Objections of the employer and dismissed the Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim. The Superior Court affirmed it.
 |
| Judge David N. Wecht Pennsylvania Superior Court |
According to the record, a bystander had restrained the
Plaintiff as he attempted to flee and there was nothing in the record indicating
that the bystander’s restraint was insufficient to keep the Plaintiff at bay
until the fare could be collected by the taxi driver or until the police could
be summoned to take control.
The court agreed that, when the taxi driver punched and
kicked the Plaintiff while he was being held on the ground and unable to defend
himself, the taxi driver departed from the scope of his employment in that
there is no evidence that the employer instructed its taxi drivers to attack
restrained and vulnerable passengers who refuse to pay their fares.
The Superior Court ultimately ruled that the trial court was correct in finding, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for vicarious liability against the employer under the circumstances presented.
Anyone wishing to read this Opinion in the Spitsin case may click this LINK
It is noted that Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge David N. Wecht will be a featured presenter at the upcoming Tort Talk Expo 2014 set to take place on September 26, 2014 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Click HERE to view the Agenda for the CLE seminar and, if interested in attending, please click HERE to Register online, or contact me at dancummins@cmcast.net.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Are You A Fan of Tort Talk?
Are you a fan of Tort Talk? Need CLE credits? Looking for a laid back way to kill a Friday afternoon and ease into a nice September, Fall weekend?
Hoping you might consider Registering for the Tort Talk Expo 2014 CLE Seminar and Cocktail Reception set for Friday, September 26, 2014 at the new Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel.
In addition to earning 3 Substantive Credits and 1 Ethics Credit, the Expo will present an opportunities to network with fellow members of the bar, claims professionals, and members of the local judiciary, as well as visit sponsor tables of a variety of companies offering litigation services (and pick up their giveaways).
As in year's past, there will also be door prizes along with raffle prizes with chances to win, TVs, tickets to sporting events, gift cards, an overnight stay at the Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel, and other enticing items.
Following the seminar will be a Cocktail Reception to kick off your weekend. Thereafter, if desired, the restaurant, gaming, and entertainment choices at the Mohegan Sun casino can be enjoyed.
Click this LINK to Register online or contact Dan Cummins at dancummins@comcast.net or 570-346-0745 for more information.
If you are coming in from out of town, or just want an overnight out, a book of rooms have been set aside for Tort Talk attendees at a special rate. Click HERE to book a room at the Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel for the Tort Talk Expo 2014.
 |
| The Mohegan Sun Casino and Hotel |
Monday, August 18, 2014
A Supreme Victory for Residential Homebuilders
According to some who practice construction litigation, this case is an enormous victory for residential homebuilders in Pennsylvania who have been subjected to litigation involving water intrusion into stucco clad homes. In the majority of these cases, the negligence claim is extinguished pursuant to the gist of the action doctrine and there is no express warranty claim for a subsequent purchaser. Without the implied warranty claim, these remote purchasers are left with no recourse.
I send thanks to Attorney Joe Walsh of the Lansdale, PA law firm of Walsh Pancio for bringing
this decision to my attention hot off the presses along with explaining the impact of the same in construction litigation matters.
Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.
Another Trial Court Allows a Plaintiff To Consolidate Entirely Separate Accident Claims
In the case of Swalinski v. Forsythe, 2012-SU-1529-69 (York Co. Aug. 5, 2014), the York County Court of Common Pleas followed the prior decision of Judge Wettick in Jackson v. Drew and allowed a Plaintiff to pursue personal injury claims arising out of two separate motor vehicle accidents in a consolidated fashion.
The accidents involved in Swalinski occurred in the same county about two weeks apart and involved the similar injuries. The Swalinski court granted a Plaintiff's motion to consolidate two cases involving the same injured Plaintiff against two different tortfeasors.
Anyone wishing to view this Swalinski decision may click this LINK.
The prevailing Plaintiff's attorney in this matter was Abbie Trone, Esq., of the Harrisburg law firm of Schmidt Kramer. I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the same firm for bringing this decision to my attention.
To view the Tort Talk blog post on Judge Wettick's decision on the same issue in the case of Jackson v. Drew along with a link to that case, please click HERE.
Source of image: www.click2curb.com
Sunday, August 17, 2014
NOTE TO THOSE SIGNED UP FOR TORT TALK EXPO 2014: New Location for Tort Talk Expo At the Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel
For those of you who have registered for the Friday September 26th Tort Talk Expo 2014 CLE Seminar & Cocktail Reception, please note that the seminar will NOT be in the same downstairs area ballroom as in past years.
Rather, the Seminar will take place in a ballroom known as "THE CONVENTION CENTER" which is located within the NEW MOHEGAN SUN HOTEL AREA which is adjacent to the casino.
Self-parking is available by turning right at the third Stop sign once you enter the casino complex. You may also reach valet parking by continuing down that same road further on after you have made that right hand turn at the third Stop Sign.
Also, weather permitting, the Cocktail Reception following the Seminar will be held on an outdoor terrace complete with a fire pit. If the weather does not permit an outside Cocktail Reception, the Reception will take place in Breakers, as usual.
Seats still remain -- please click HERE to register online or contact me at dancummins@comcast.net or 570-346-0745.
Friday, August 15, 2014
PLW Article Reports Limited Tort Lawsuits Are Down
Here is a LINK to a recent Pennsylvania Law Weekly article of note by reporter Max Mitchell on the recent trends relative to limited tort auto accident lawsuits in Pennsylvania. As you will see, Mr. Mitchell contacted me as part of the story for my recent experiences in this area of the law.
If you are not able to access the article via the Link, please let me know (dancummins@comcast.net) and I will email you a copy.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Third Circuit Court of Appeals Tackles Sacket Waiver of Stacking Issue
In its recent decision in the case of Seiple v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., No. 13-3213 (3d Cir. June
12, 2014 Fisher, Van Antwerpen, and Tashima, J.)(Op. by Fisher, J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a waiver of stacking
clause case under the Sackett anaylsis.
Ultimately, the dismissal of the claims for stacking benefits by the lower court was affirmed despite the lack of a waiver in a case where the insured signed a waiver of stacking and the vehicle was added in this matter under an after-acquired vehicle endorsement.
Anyone wishing to try to wrap their head around this obtuse issue may read the Seiple opinion HERE.
Ultimately, the dismissal of the claims for stacking benefits by the lower court was affirmed despite the lack of a waiver in a case where the insured signed a waiver of stacking and the vehicle was added in this matter under an after-acquired vehicle endorsement.
Anyone wishing to try to wrap their head around this obtuse issue may read the Seiple opinion HERE.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
First Party Auto Carriers Held to Have Duty to Reduce Medical Expenses Before Paying
The Lawrence County
trial court ruled that first party carriers had a duty to follow the law and
pay the properly reduced amounts. In his
decision, Judge Cox rejected the carrier's contention that this failure to re-price
medical expenses did not amount to a valid cause of action.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Various Tort Talk Scorecards Recently Updated
If interested, just go to Tort Talk at www.TortTalk.com and scroll down the right hand column and click on the dates noted under each Scorecard listing to be taken to that particular Scorecard.
TORT TALK EXPO 2014
MOHEGAN SUN CASINO AND HOTEL
September 26, 2014
(3 Substantive, 1 Ethics Credit)
The recent updates on these Scorecards will be covered at the upcoming September 26th Tort Talk Expo 2014, with CLE Seminar and Cocktail Reception, at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Wilkes-Barre, PA. Click HERE for the Seminar Agenda and THIS REGISTRATION LINK to Register. You may also register by emailing me and sending payment to my attention. Thanks.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Lay Witness Testimony on Speed Need Not Be Precise
In the case of Melgar
v. Weinstein, No. 3:12-cv-1916 (M.D. Pa. May 23, 2014 Caputo, J.), Federal Middle District Judge A. Richard Caputo
denied summary judgment in an automobile accident negligence matter based upon
disputed testimony regarding the speed of the vehicle involved in the
accident.
This case is notable for the acknowledgement by the court that lay
witnesses may testify regarding vehicle speed generally and without the need for precise accuracy in stating the speed witnessed.
More specifically, in this matter, there is deposition testimony that
the speed limit was 45 mph and there were witnesses that stated that the
vehicles involved were moving at approximately 50-60 mph at the time of the accident in a
tunnel.
Copy of UIM Collateral Estoppel Case Secured
I was able to secure a copy of the USAA v. Hudson Delaware County Court of Common Pleas UIM collateral estoppel decision summarized in a recent Tort Talk post.
Anyone wishing to review the same may click this LINK.
Anyone wishing to review the same may click this LINK.
Visit Tort Talk Blog to Sign Up for Tort Talk Expo 2014 CLE Seminar
The September 26, 2014 Tort Talk Expo 2014 CLE Seminar (3 Substantive, 1 Ethics Credit) is fast approaching.
Please visit the Tort Talk blog at www.TortTalk.com and click the LINKS in the upper right hand corner to view the Agenda for the upcoming Tort Talk Expo 2014, Register online, and/or reserve a Hotel Room at the Mohegan Sun Casino and Hotel.
You may also register by sending payment made out to "Tort Talk" to:
Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
Thanks for reading Tort Talk. Hope to see you at the Expo!
Please visit the Tort Talk blog at www.TortTalk.com and click the LINKS in the upper right hand corner to view the Agenda for the upcoming Tort Talk Expo 2014, Register online, and/or reserve a Hotel Room at the Mohegan Sun Casino and Hotel.
You may also register by sending payment made out to "Tort Talk" to:
Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
Thanks for reading Tort Talk. Hope to see you at the Expo!
Monday, August 4, 2014
Another UIM Collateral Estoppel Case Uncovered
In the recent case of USAA v. Hudson, 101 Del. 154 (C.P. Del. Co. Feb. 21, 2014), the Court ruled that collateral estoppel precludes a re-litigation of an action in which the insured seeks UIM coverage when the same issue was previously litigated, even though the award may have been less than the policy limits.
I do not have a copy of this one but should anyone out there have a copy they can share with me, I will share it with the masses.
I do not have a copy of this one but should anyone out there have a copy they can share with me, I will share it with the masses.
Friday, August 1, 2014
SEATS FILLING UP: Register Now for Next Month's Tort Talk Expo 2014
PLEASE SAVE THE DATE
September 26, 2014
TORT TALK EXPO 2014
Mohegan Sun Casino and Hotel
Wilkes-Barre, PA
(3 Substantive, 1 Ethics Credit)
PROGRAM TO INCLUDE:
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
"Back to School"
A TORT TALK AUTO LAW/CIVIL LITIGATION UPDATE
by
Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
FOLEY, COMERFORD & CUMMINS
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
BAD FAITH UPDATE
by
Timothy G. Lenahan, Esq.
LENAHAN & DEMPSEY
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT KRAMER
Neil T. O'Donnell, Esq.
O'DONNELL LAW OFFICES
Moderator: Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
FOLEY, COMERFORD & CUMMINS
{BREAK: 2:00 pm - 2:15 pm}
2:15 pm - 3:15 pm
MEDICAL HOUR
with
Dr. Lucian Bednarz - Physiatrist - on RSD
and
Dr. Paul Horchos - Physiatrist - on Post-concussion Syndrome
NORTHEASTERN REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES
{BREAK: 3:15 pm - 3:30 pm}
3:30 pm - 4:30 pm
VIEW FROM THE BENCH
Ethical Considerations
for
Settlement Conferences
and
Jury Selection
Moderator: Paul Oven, Esq.
Dougherty, Leventhal & Price
JUDICIAL PANELISTS
Pennsylvania Superior Judge Court David N. Wecht
Luzerne County Judge Richard M. Hughes,
Lackawanna County Judge A. James Gibbons
U.S. Federal Middle District Court Judge Malachy E. Mannion
U.S. Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick
4:30 pm - 6 pm
POST-SEMINAR COCKTAIL RECEPTION
THIS YEAR'S CLE SEMINAR WILL BE HELD IN A BALLROOM IN THE NEW HOTEL and SPA AREA AT THE MOHEGAN SUN
TABLE VENDOR SPONSORS TO DATE (Alphabetical):
At The Scene
Courtside Documents
Exhibit A
FindLaw/THOMPSON REUTERS
LexisNexis
Medical Legal Reproductions
Network Deposition Services
Northeastern Rehabilitation Associates
RecordTrak
The MCS Group
As in the past, there will again be door prizes and raffle prizes.
Vendor tables are still available on first-come, first-serve basis. Other sponsorship/advertising opportunities available for service providers in the CLE written materials for service providers. (contact Dan Cummins at dancummins@comcast.net for more details).
NEW this year will be the availability of a block of HOTEL ROOMS at the NEW Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel and Spa located on the property.
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER ONLINE
or mail check made out to "Tort Talk" and the below form to:
Daniel E. Cummins
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
NAME: ___________________________________________________
FIRM/COMPANY: _________________________________________
EMAIL: ___________________________________________________
CLICK HERE TO BOOK A HOTEL ROOM
or mail check made out to "Tort Talk" and the below form to:
Daniel E. Cummins
Foley, Comerford & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
NAME: ___________________________________________________
FIRM/COMPANY: _________________________________________
EMAIL: ___________________________________________________
CLICK HERE TO BOOK A HOTEL ROOM
In the meantime, please consider marking your calendar to attend the Tort Talk Expo 2014 on the afternoon of:
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
