In the case of Sekulski v. Walker and Erie Ins. Exch., No. 19-14211 (C.P. Berks Co. Sept. 17, 2024 Nevius, J.), the Berks County Court of Common Pleas denied the Motion to Sever filed by both the third party Defendant and the UIM carrier Defendant in a Post-Koken motor vehicle accident case.
The court ruled that the third party tort liability claim would be tried jointly with the Plaintiff’s first party claim for underinsured motorist benefits, with Erie Insurance identified as a real party and interest to those proceedings.
In its detailed Order, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claim against all Defendants arose from the same factual background and involved common questions of law and fact.
As such, the court noted that judicial economy favored one trial of all claims. The court was also influenced by the fact that a severance of the case into two separate matters or trial would result in an undue hardship and burden on the Plaintiffs who would be required to present their case twice at a presumed substantial cost and with additional delays.
The court also noted a concern with the likelihood of possible inconsistent verdicts.
The court also rejected the tortfeasor Defendant’s argument that having a UIM carrier as a Co-Defendant would prejudice that Defendant in light of the anticipated repeated references to insurance at the trial in front of the jury. Judge Nevius noted that there would be no reference to the tortfeasor’s liability insurance. The court additionally noted that it could craft jury instructions to address any concerns about possible prejudice in this regard.
Judge Nevius additionally noted that this decision did not address the bifurcation of any potential bad faith claims given that it did not appear that any such claims were at issue in this matter.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Peter F. Schuchman and Attorney Julia Adams of the Wyomissing, PA office of Kozloff Stoudt for bringing this case to my attention.
The court also noted a concern with the likelihood of possible inconsistent verdicts.
The court also rejected the tortfeasor Defendant’s argument that having a UIM carrier as a Co-Defendant would prejudice that Defendant in light of the anticipated repeated references to insurance at the trial in front of the jury. Judge Nevius noted that there would be no reference to the tortfeasor’s liability insurance. The court additionally noted that it could craft jury instructions to address any concerns about possible prejudice in this regard.
Judge Nevius additionally noted that this decision did not address the bifurcation of any potential bad faith claims given that it did not appear that any such claims were at issue in this matter.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Peter F. Schuchman and Attorney Julia Adams of the Wyomissing, PA office of Kozloff Stoudt for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.