Tort Talkers may recall a recent post on the Bankruptcy Court case of In re Betty L. Morris addressing the ability of a Plaintiff to move a personal injury case forward against a tortfeasor who is in bankruptcy where the Plaintiff agrees to limit the recovery to the amount of the liability limits available. That Tort Talk post can be viewed via this LINK.
Anyone wishing to review the companion state court decision in that case along the same lines may click HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott E. Diamond of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law firm of Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.
Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Bankruptcy Court Addresses Impact of Bankruptcy Stay on Ability of Plaintiff To Proceed on Personal Injury Action
A recurring issue in civil litigation matters is the effect of a Bankruptcy Stay on the ability of a plaintiff to proceed on a personal injury action against a person in bankruptcy.
In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District case of In Re: Betty L. Morris, No. 1-14-bk-03161 RNO (April 28, 2017), the court addressed a Claimant’s desire to move forward in a state court personal injury action to pursue only the extent of the available liability insurance coverage despite a bankruptcy stay.
According to the Opinion, the Chapter 7 debtor received a bankruptcy in October of 2014. The case was reopened in February of 2017 to consider a motion filed by a personal injury Claimant who commenced a pre-bankruptcy state court action against the debtor. The state court action arose out of a motor vehicle accident against the debtor.
The Claimant moved for a declaration from the bankruptcy court that her state court action, in which she wished to only pursue the extent of the available liability insurance coverage, is not stayed by the discharge injunction imposed by §524 of the bankruptcy code.
After a review of the matter before it, the court concluded that the state court personal injury action was not stayed and could proceed.
Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.
In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District case of In Re: Betty L. Morris, No. 1-14-bk-03161 RNO (April 28, 2017), the court addressed a Claimant’s desire to move forward in a state court personal injury action to pursue only the extent of the available liability insurance coverage despite a bankruptcy stay.
According to the Opinion, the Chapter 7 debtor received a bankruptcy in October of 2014. The case was reopened in February of 2017 to consider a motion filed by a personal injury Claimant who commenced a pre-bankruptcy state court action against the debtor. The state court action arose out of a motor vehicle accident against the debtor.
The Claimant moved for a declaration from the bankruptcy court that her state court action, in which she wished to only pursue the extent of the available liability insurance coverage, is not stayed by the discharge injunction imposed by §524 of the bankruptcy code.
After a review of the matter before it, the court concluded that the state court personal injury action was not stayed and could proceed.
Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott E. Diamond of the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law firm of Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC for bringing
this case to my attention.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Update on Gubbiotti Bankruptcy Decision
Tort talkers may recall that I recently reported on the case of Gubbiotti v. Santey, 880 M.D.A. 2011, 2012 W.L. 2389449 (Pa. Super. June 26, 2012), Petition for Allowance of Appeal Filed, 567 MAL 2012 (July 26, 2012) in which the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that 40 Pa. C.S.A. §117 does not allow the pursuit of a lawsuit to establish liability of a Defendant for the sole purpose of recovering from the Defendant’s carrier after that Defendant has received a discharge in bankruptcy.
I note that in a more recent Berks County Court of Common Pleas trial court decision in the case of MacCaull v. Livingston, 2012 W.L. 6777380 (C.P. Berks Co. Aug. 23, 2012 Schmehl, P.J.) Judge Jeffery L. Schmehl essentially limited the Gubbiotti decision to the facts presented before the Gubbiotti court and also noted that the Gubbiotti case did not “address 11 USC §524(e), which numerous courts have held does allow such a suit to go forward despite a bankruptcy discharge. See MacCaull, 2012 W.L. 6777380*1 fn.1 citing with “See, e.g.” signal First Fidelity Bank v. McAgeer, 985 F.2nd 114, 118 (3d Cir. 1993); Greene v. Welsh, 956 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1992); In Re Jet Florida Systems, Inc., 883 F.2d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 1989); In Re Gutches, 430 B.R. 342, 345-47 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
In his decision in the MacCaull case, Judge Schmehl denied a Defendant’s Motion to Amend their New Matter (presumably to add a defense of a discharge in bankruptcy). The court denied this motion without prejudice to the Defendant’s right to reassert a defense in a Motion for Post-Trial Relief, based upon the Defendant’s bankruptcy discharge.
Anyone desiring a copy of this Order may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
I note that in a more recent Berks County Court of Common Pleas trial court decision in the case of MacCaull v. Livingston, 2012 W.L. 6777380 (C.P. Berks Co. Aug. 23, 2012 Schmehl, P.J.) Judge Jeffery L. Schmehl essentially limited the Gubbiotti decision to the facts presented before the Gubbiotti court and also noted that the Gubbiotti case did not “address 11 USC §524(e), which numerous courts have held does allow such a suit to go forward despite a bankruptcy discharge. See MacCaull, 2012 W.L. 6777380*1 fn.1 citing with “See, e.g.” signal First Fidelity Bank v. McAgeer, 985 F.2nd 114, 118 (3d Cir. 1993); Greene v. Welsh, 956 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1992); In Re Jet Florida Systems, Inc., 883 F.2d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 1989); In Re Gutches, 430 B.R. 342, 345-47 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
In his decision in the MacCaull case, Judge Schmehl denied a Defendant’s Motion to Amend their New Matter (presumably to add a defense of a discharge in bankruptcy). The court denied this motion without prejudice to the Defendant’s right to reassert a defense in a Motion for Post-Trial Relief, based upon the Defendant’s bankruptcy discharge.
Anyone desiring a copy of this Order may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Potential Effect of Defendant's Bankruptcy on Personal Injury Matter
In its recent June 26, 2012 decision in the case of Gubbiotti v. Santey, Nos. 880-MDA-2011, 885-MDA-2011 (Pa. Super. June 26, 2012 Stevens, P.J., Panella, J., and Mundy, J.)(Opinion by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the entry of summary judgment by Judge Chester P. Muroski of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in favor of a Defendant in a case in which the Plaintiff attempted to pursue a recovery from the Defendant's liability carrier after the Defendant had been discharged in a bankruptcy matter.
The Plaintiffs argued that the discharge of the Defendant’s debts in bankruptcy did not impede the Plaintiff’s ability to pursue an action to collect damages from the Defendant’s insurance company for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.
After a review of the case before it, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that, since there was no timely objection by the Plaintiff to the discharge of the Defendant’s debts, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the underlying personal injury action.
Anyone involved in a personal injury action in which the Defendant tortfeasor is involved in a bankruptcy may wish to review this decision as to the impact of the bankruptcy proceedings on the civil litigation matter.
In this matter, the Defendant went through a bankruptcy, and after the bankruptcy court discharged all of the Defendant’s debts accumulated prior to the Discharge Order date, the Defendant filed a motion seeking to amend his New Matter in the underlying personal injury action to include the affirmative defense of a discharge from bankruptcy. The Defendant thereafter moved to obtain summary judgment on that basis, which was granted by the trial court and, in this opinion, affirmed by the Superior Court.
Anyone desiring to review a copy of this decision may click HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Howard M. Levinson of the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania law office of Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald for bringing this case to my attention.
The Plaintiffs argued that the discharge of the Defendant’s debts in bankruptcy did not impede the Plaintiff’s ability to pursue an action to collect damages from the Defendant’s insurance company for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident.
After a review of the case before it, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that, since there was no timely objection by the Plaintiff to the discharge of the Defendant’s debts, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the underlying personal injury action.
Anyone involved in a personal injury action in which the Defendant tortfeasor is involved in a bankruptcy may wish to review this decision as to the impact of the bankruptcy proceedings on the civil litigation matter.
In this matter, the Defendant went through a bankruptcy, and after the bankruptcy court discharged all of the Defendant’s debts accumulated prior to the Discharge Order date, the Defendant filed a motion seeking to amend his New Matter in the underlying personal injury action to include the affirmative defense of a discharge from bankruptcy. The Defendant thereafter moved to obtain summary judgment on that basis, which was granted by the trial court and, in this opinion, affirmed by the Superior Court.
Anyone desiring to review a copy of this decision may click HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Howard M. Levinson of the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania law office of Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald for bringing this case to my attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
