Judge Terrence R. Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Law Regarding Parties Intervening Into a Lawsuit

In the case of Helring v. Scranton Police Pension Board, No. 2024-CV-7781(C.P. Lacka. Co. July 9, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed the ability to the City of Scranton to intervene into an action regarding a dispute over police pension benefits.

While the case was pending, the City of Scranton filed a Petition to Intervene as a party, which intervention request was opposed by the former police officer, but not the Scranton Police Pension Board.

In his decision, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas provided a thorough overview of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Pennsylvania law regarding intervention in an action under Pa. R.C.P. 2327(4).

The court found that, after reviewing the facts of the case before it, as applied to the applicable law, the City’s interest in preventing the violation of its ordinances provided the City with grounds to intervene in the action.

The court also noted that none of the three (3) discretionary bases for refusing intervention as set forth under Pa. R.C.P. 2329 existed in the matter.

Accordingly, the court granted the City’s Petition to Intervene.


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

Trial Court Rejects Carrier's Request To Intervene To Put Coverage Question On Verdict Slip

In the case of Hannibal v. Solid Waste Serv., Inc., Feb. Term, No. 01172 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 29, 2022 Shreves-Johns, J.), the court found that the Defendant’s liability insurance company could not intervene in this premises liability action for the limited purpose for submitting Interrogatories in aid of determining whether the Plaintiff’s accident was excluded under the insurance company’s insurance policy.

This case arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff was working at a state prison when he was injured in an accident in a work-related event.

The trial court denied the Defendant’s insurance company’s Petition to Intervene after finding that the insurance company’s liability was uncertain and that the insurance company did not have a legally enforceable interest in the case at hand.

The court issued its ruling after reviewing the categories of permissible intervenors as defined under Pa. R.C.P. 2327.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Oleksandr Pidvalnyi on www.pexels.com.

Worker's Compensation Carrier Allowed to Intervene in Third Party Action to Recover Lien

 

In the case of Gleason v. Alfred I. Dupont Hospital, No. 1872 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Aug. 5, 2021 McLaughlin, J., King, J., Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Pellegrini, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court permitted a worker’s compensation carrier to intervene in a third party personal injury litigation as part of the worker’s compensation carrier’s efforts to protect its subrogation rights on its lien by challenging the parties’ allocation of the settlement proceeds.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff-husband sustained burn injuries as a result of a work-related event.

During the course of the third party litigation, the injured Plaintiff entered into a sizeable settlement with one of the alleged tortfeasor Defendants. A petition was then filed by the Plaintiff with the court for court approval of that settlement, including the allocation of 60% of that settlement to the loss of consortium claim.

The worker’s compensation carrier filed a Petition to Intervene in order to protect its subrogation rights. The worker’s compensation carrier was asserting that the allocation of a substantial portion to the settlement funds to the loss of consortium claim was unfair and was designed to preclude the worker’s compensation carrier from fully recovering on its subrogation rights.

When that initial Petition to Intervene filed by the worker’s compensation carrier was denied, the worker’s compensation carrier eventually filed a second Petition to Intervene which was also denied. An appeal followed.

As noted above, on appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that the worker’s compensation should have been allowed to intervene in a third party action to protect its interests.

The court found that the requirements of the Collateral Order Doctrine had been met under the case presented such that the worker’s compensation carrier should be entitled to intervene.

The court noted that, where the worker’s compensation carrier had paid nearly a $1 million dollars on behalf of the injured party as a result of the workplace accident, justice required that it be allowed to intervene in a case where the settlement agreement against the third party tortfeasor was structured in a manner that limited the worker’s compensation lien to only about a third of the amount of the lien.

As such, the Superior Court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying the intervention sought by the worker’s compensation carrier as that intervention was necessary to fully protect the worker’s compensation carrier’s subrogation rights and rights to challenge the apportionment of the settlement proceeds in the third party matter relative to the loss of consortium claim.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Thomas B. Helbig of Helbig Mediation and Arbitration for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of Image (not of structure in question):  Photo by Markus Spiske on unsplash.com.

Judge Crafts Remedy in Coverage Action So that Injured Party is Not Left Out of the Fight

In the case of Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. Strong Contractors, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03519-JD (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2020 DuBois, J.), the court addressed issues surrounding an injured party’s desire to intervene into a declaratory judgment action between a liability carrier and the alleged tortfeasor. 

According to the Opinion, in an underlying state court action, the injured party Plaintiff filed suit against the alleged tortfeasor, Strong Contractors, claiming that the negligence of the tortfeasor in failing to barricade an opening in a floor on a construction site led to the Plaintiff’s injuries. 

The carrier for the alleged tortfeasor filed this federal court action seeking to rescind its policy issued to the alleged tortfeasor on the grounds that the alleged tortfeasor had allegedly misrepresented important information in its application for the insurance coverage. When the alleged tortfeasor failed to appear in the federal court action, the insurance company moved to have a default judgment entered. 

At that time, the injured party Plaintiff filed a Motion to Join the federal court action as a necessary party. 

The federal court agreed with the carrier’s position that the injured parties did not qualify as a necessary party in this federal court declaratory judgment action on coverage given that the injured party only had a financial interest in the outcome of the case, which did not constitute a legally protected interest recognized under Rule 19 governing the intervention into actions by new parties.

The court additionally ruled that the injured party was not entitled to intervene as of right and was not entitled to join the action under a permissive intervention under F.R.C.P. 24, again noting that the injured party’s interests in the outcome of the federal court coverage action was merely economic in nature. 

The court also held that the injured party’s contingent financial interests did not generate common questions of law or fact with the coverage dispute. 

Despite ruling against the injured party’s Motion to Intervene, the federal court ultimately declined to retain its jurisdiction over this coverage action under the Declaratory Judgments Act. 

The court ruled that the intertwined nature between the present coverage action and the injured party’s personal injury against the alleged tortfeasor would make granting a default judgment in favor of the liability carrier an inequitable result. As such, the court noted that, if the carrier were to file its declaratory judgment action in state court, the injured party would have to be joined as an indispensable party. 

The court ruled that it appeared that the carrier had filed suit specifically to avoid having to join the injured party or others to its coverage action. As such, the federal court declined to retain jurisdiction over this matter. 

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 8, 2020).

Injured Plaintiff's Desire To Recover on Defendant's Liability Coverage Not Sufficient to Support Intervention in a Coverage Action

In the case of Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Diamond Builders, Inc., No. 20-1608 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2020 Joyner, J.), the court denied a personal injury Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene in a declaratory judgment action on coverage.

The court ruled that a personal injury Plaintiff with a potentially large claim against an insured Defendant does not have a cognizable legal interest in the insured Defendant’s insurance coverage that can support the Plaintiff’s effort to intervene in a coverage dispute between the liability carrier and its insured Defendant.

The court otherwise noted that the fact that a lawsuit may impede a Plaintiff’s ability to recover in a separate litigation is not a sufficient basis to support an intervention in the coverage action.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Here is a LINK to the companion Order.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Plaintiff's Bid to Prevail in Defendant's Coverage Action with Liability Carrier Rejected

In the case of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Worontzoff, No. 2:20-CV-839-GAM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2020 McHugh, J.), the court granted an insurance company’s Motion to Strike an injured party’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the carrier’s declaratory judgment action seeking to establish that it was not obligated to provide coverage to its insured for injuries allegedly caused to the injured party.

The court found that the injured party’s interest, that is a plaintiff's interest, in seeking the availability of insurance proceed was not sufficient to warrant intervention as a right under F. R.C.P. 24 or as a necessary party under F. R.C.P. 19(a)(1)(2). 

The court ruled that, where an interested party only had a merely financial interest in the action and not a “legally protected interest” that party could not seek to join in the case under F.R.C.P. 19(a)(1)(B). 

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 24, 2020).