Plaintiff's Personal Injury Claim Dismissed After Plaintiff Presented False Documents and False Testimony To the Court

In the case Brown v. Kimsey, No. 2:22-CV-03441-MAK (E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2023 Kearney, J.), the court relied upon the applicable factors identified in the case of Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984), to dismiss an automobile accident personal injury case being pursued by a Plaintiff who was originally represented but who then became a pro se Plaintiff after the attorney withdrew. The case was dismissed based upon the court’s finding that the Plaintiff had presented altered documents and had a friend falsely claim that she was the Plaintiff’s wife in an effort to secure a recovery on a loss of consortium claim.

Judge Kearney started off his Opinion by stating, “Truth-seeking in our adversary system of resolving disputes depends on zealous advocacy of grounded legal arguments based on facts. Facts are facts; they are not theories or hopes. Misrepresentation of facts are not permitted in court. Parties and their lawyers who present knowing false facts to the court cannot recover in the public’s courthouse.”  See Op. at 1.

As part of the support for the dismissal of the claim, the court noted that the Plaintiff sat by during depositions while his female friend lied under oath that she was the Plaintiff’s wife. That friend then repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when she realized that the opposing party had uncovered her lies.  Thereafter, the friend, who purported to be the Plaintiff’s wife, quickly dropped her false of loss of consortium claim when the opposing party would not pay her based upon those misrepresentations.

In the end, based upon this evidence, and other evidence, the court dismissed the case after finding that the pro se Plaintiff had committed a fraud upon the court.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas Butler of the Flourtown, PA office of Butler Law for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Phot by Brett Jordan on www.pexels.com.

Preliminary Objections Overruled in Clergy Abuse Personal Injury Case

In the case of Patchkoski v. Diocese of Scranton, No. 2019-CV-5061 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 12, 2020 Bisignani-Moyle, J.), the court addressed several Preliminary Objections to a personal injury Complaint arising out of claims of clergy abuse.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint against various Defendants relative to allegations of clergy abuse within the Diocese and an “alleged cover-up” of the same by the Diocese, all of which resulted in personal injuries to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants filed various demurrers to the different claims asserted, including claims of Conspiracy, Fraud, Constructive Fraud, and for Punitive Damages. The Defendants also asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims failed due to the failure of the Plaintiff to have standing to bring the claim and due to the Plaintiff’s failure to add the Vatican as an indispensable party.

In the end, the Court denied all of the demurrers asserted and also found that the Plaintiff had standing to pursue the claim.

The Court also held that the Vatican was not an indispensable party that was required to be joined in this matter. The Court noted that, although the Plaintiff mentioned the complicity of the Vatican in the Complaint, there was no allegation that the Vatican caused the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK

I send thanks to Attorney Christopher Quinn of the Kingston, PA law firm of Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn for bringing this case to my attention.

Court Upholds Carrier's Right to Deny Coverage For Material Misrepresentations After Fire Loss

In the Western District Federal Court case of American National Property and Casualty Co. v. Felix, No. 3:16-cv-147 (April 11, 2018 Gibson, J.), the court granted the carrier Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims of bad faith asserted.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of the carrier’s denial of the insured’s claim under a homeowner’s policy after the insured’s home was damaged by fire.  

Part of the issues raised in this matter included an allegation that the insured had submitted material misrepresentations to the carrier after the fire loss in that he, in part, asserted that diamond stud earrings and a Louis Vuitton purse were lost in the fire.  During the carrier’s investigation, the carrier consulted with the insured’s ex-fiancé who confirmed that she was in possession of the diamond stud earrings and the Louis Vuitton purse that the insured claimed had been lost in the fire.  

After securing a legal opinion on whether the policy could be voided due to an alleged material misrepresentation by the insured, the carrier decided to deny the claim and to file a lawsuit against the insured for a Declaratory Judgment to seek judicial confirmation that the carrier was not required to provide coverage to the insured based upon alleged material misrepresentations.   The carrier also included a claim against the insured for civil insurance fraud in the Complaint.  

The insured responded by filing an Answer and Counterclaims for breach of contract and statutory bad faith. 

The case later came before the court on cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.  

After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law pertaining to Pennsylvania’s Bad Faith Statute and applying the same to the record before it, the court granted the carrier’s motion and denied the insured’s motion.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, along with Attorneys Richard McMonigle and Brian Shay of Post & Schell for bringing this case to my attention.

Failure To Disclose Claim Allowed To Proceed in Lackawanna County Residential Real Estate Transaction Case

In his recent February 8, 2012 decision in the case of Brown v. Jones, No. 11-Civil-5253 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 8, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff’s causes of action for violation of the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law, 68 Pa. C.S. §7301 et. seq., and common law fraud.

According to the Opinions, in April of 2010, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants executed an Agreement of Sale related to the Plaintiff’s purchase of the Defendant’s residential property.

In connection with the real estate transaction, the Defendant prior homeowner provided the Plaintiff new homeowner with an original Property Disclosure Statement along with a Supplemental Disclosure Statement which the original homeowner had prepared and signed in compliance with the above-stated law.

In that documentation, the original homeowner represented that the property’s roof had never leaked during the court of their ownership nor were they aware of any leakage, accumulation, dampness in the basement or any repairs to control any water or dampness problem in the basement. The original homeowner also denied any knowledge or any water damage or drainage issues on the property. Based upon these representations, the new homeowners closed on the property and purchased the same.

Thereafter, during a significant rainfall in the Fall of 2010, the new homeowners sustained extensive water damage to their finished basement allegedly due to considerable water leakage in four separate areas of the basement.

After the water damage persisted with each ensuing rainfall or snow melt, the new homeowners took remedial action by removing the drywall and carpeting in the basement. That allegedly revealed that the water damages were of a “historic nature."  There was also allegedly evidence that the foundation had been previously treated which allegedly indicated knowledge of a leakage problem by the prior owners.  According to the Opinion, the basement floor continued to become covered with water with each additional rainfall.

The new homeowners also alleged other water damage as a result of a leaking roof. The new homeowners asserted that, after the purchase of their home and after noticing water damage from the leaking roof, they discovered plastic sheeting on the attic floor along with absorbing carpeting which lead them to believe that the prior homeowners were also aware of leaking water from the roof area.

Based on these recurring issue, the new homeowners filed suit.

In their demurrer to the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs had failed to allege with any particularity the specific allegedly fraudulent representations made by the original homeowners. The Defendants asserted that it appeared that the Plaintiffs were simply concluding that because the property sustained water damages, the original homeowners may have known about leaks and failed to disclose them.

According to the Court, it appeared that the gist of the Defendant's argument in support of their demurrer was that the requisite intent to defraud could not established under Pennsylvania law by circumstantial evidence.

After reviewing the case presented and providing a detailed analysis of the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law, Judge Nealon found that the Plaintiff’s Complaint stated sustainable causes of action under that law as well as under a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. In so ruling, Judge Nealon also pointed out that the scienter component of a fraud claim “may be established by circumstantial evidence.”  
Accordingly, the Court overruled the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections and allowed the Plaintiff’s claim to proceed.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Decision by Judge Nealon in the case of Brown v. Jones may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

Fraudulent Concealment Claim Addressed in Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

In an Opinion that he handed down on November 7, 2011, in the case of Ruby v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., No. 11 - CV - 3462  (C.P. Lack. Co. Nov. 7, 2011 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed the parameters of a claim claim for fraudulent concealment.

In this case, the Plaintiff sued Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that the Defendant repeatedly called his cell phone via an automatic dialing device.

The Defendant, Southwest Credit Systems, filed an Answer to the Complaint along with a Counterclaim for "Fraud-Intentional Non-Disclosure."  The Defendant admitted that it made a number of calls to a cell phone number provided to it by a debtor but that when the Defendant spoke to the Plaintiff on the phone, the Plaintiff did not advise the Defendant that he was not the person who owed money on the account.  As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff, by virtue of his failure to advise the Defendant that they had the wrong number or person, was precluded from recovering under the terms of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Due to this non-disclosure by the Plaintiff, the Defendant also sought in its Counterclaim to recover its defense costs under an allegation of fraud on the part of the Plaintiff.  The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had intentionally misled the Defendant and that the Defendant relied upon the alleged misrepresentation by the Plaintiff.  The allegations in the pleadings were that the Plaintiff simply asked the name of the caller and hung up on the Defendant.

The case came before the court on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer filed by the Plaintiff to the fraud Counterclaim asserted by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff asserted that mere silence on his part can not be actionable under Pennsylvania law as fraudulent activity unless the silent party has a duty to speak.

This Opinion provides a detailed review of the law pertaining to civil fraud, fraudulent misrepresentations, and fraudulent concealment claims.

After a review of this law, the Defendant's Counterclaim was ultimately dismissed by Judge Nealon based upon his finding that, although the deliberate concealment of a material fact can constitute fraud under Pennsylvania law, mere silence cannot support a fraud claim unless the party had a duty to speak.

Since there was no statutory, contractual or common law basis to support any claim that the Plaintiff had a duty to speak in this case and advise the Defendant that they were calling the wrong person, Judge Nealon  dismissed the counterclaim for fraud in this action.

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

Detailed Opinion out of Lackawanna County on Defamation, Fraud, Res Judicata, and Collateral Estoppel Issues

For those of you who deal with the torts of defamation and fraud, and for those of you who are facing a res judicata or collateral estoppel issue, I have come across a recent Opinion by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas outlining the current status of the law on these causes of action in the case of Davis v. PPL Sustainable Energy Fund, 10 - CV - 706 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 13, 2011 Nealon, J.)

This case involved a former board member of a non-profit energy conservation fund who sued the fund's directors and agents alleging fraud and defamation in orchestrating his removal from the board.  Judge Nealon denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and found that the Plaintiff had indeed stated valid causes of action for defamation and fraud.

The Opinion also analyzes in detail the difference between the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in terms of the defense argument that the Plaintiff's claims were previously adjudicated before an administrative agency.  The trial court found that the Plaintiff was not precluded from pursuing the claims presented since the tort claims were not at issue in the prior administrative proceedings.

Anyone desiring a copy of Judge Nealon's 28 page Opinion in the case of Davis v. PPL Sustainable Energy Fund may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.