Friday, August 29, 2014

Article Outlines Current Status of Restatement Debate in Pennsylvania Products Cases

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.

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 Aug. 22, 2014 Lazarus, Wecht, Musmanno, J.) (non-precedential memorandum by Lazarus, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the validity of an underinsured motorist rejection (UIM) form.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.
 
Scott Cooper, Esq.
Schmidt Kramer
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. 
 
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. 

Judge Richard M. Hughes, III
Luzerne County
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.

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
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



In its recent decision in the case of Spitsin v. WGM Transportation, 2014 Pa.Super. 162 (Pa. Super. July 29, 2014 Ford Elliott, P.J.E., Lazarus, J., Wecht, J.) (Op. by Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that an employer was not liable for a cab driver’s assault of a non-paying passenger where the record revealed that the employee used excess and dangerous force in an effort to collect the fare.  

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
In his Superior Court Opinion, Judge David N. Wecht reiterated the law of the doctrine of respondeat superior that an employer may indeed be liable for the acts of its employees committed during the course of and within the scope of employment.   The court noted, however, that where an employee commits an act involving the use of force which was excessive and so dangerous as to be totally without responsibility or reason, the employer was not responsible under such circumstances.  

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



In its August 18, 2014 decision in the case of Conway v. Cutler, No. 80 MAP 2013 (Pa. Aug. 18, 2014)(Op. by McCaffery, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a subsequent purchaser of residential real estate cannot pursue a contractual claim for implied warranty of habitability as that claim is limited to original homeowners who had a direct contractual relationship with the builder/vendor. 

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.
 

Source:  “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges in the Pennsylvania Bar News (July 21, 2014). 

 

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

First Party Auto Carriers Held to Have Duty to Reduce Medical Expenses Before Paying



In the notable Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas decision of Pavelko v. Unitrin Direct Auto Ins., No. 11190 of 2012 (C.P. Lawrence June 12, 2014 Cox, J.), Judge Craig Cox overruled a defendant first party auto insurance carrier's preliminary objections allowing an insured to proceed on a claim that the first party carrier's failure to pay reduced medical expense in accordance with Section 1797(a) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law resulted in a premature exhaustion of the insured's first party medical benefits.

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.
Anyone wishing to review this first party decision may click HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.

Friday, August 8, 2014

Various Tort Talk Scorecards Recently Updated

I have updated the Post-Koken Scorecard, the Facebook Discovery Scorecard, and the Products Liability Restatement Scorecard which can all be found on the Tort Talk webpage and accessed for free any time.

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.  

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.

 

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.

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!

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. 

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
In the meantime, please consider marking your calendar to attend the Tort Talk Expo 2014 on the afternoon of:
 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2014