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.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Court Rules That Rejection of UIM Coverage Forms Not Required Where Vehicle Not Insured for Liability
In the case of Baldridge
v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:17-cv-00273-AJS (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2017
Schwab, J.), the Federal Western District Court of Pennsylvania addressed the issue of whether underinsured motorist
coverage was available to the Plaintiff for stacking purposes on one of his
four personal vehicles which the Defendant insured.
According to the Opinion, there was no dispute that the Defendant insurance company insured the four (4) personal vehicles of the Plaintiff. There was also no dispute that the Plaintiff had UIM coverage in the amount of $300,000.00 on three of the four personal vehicles.
The question before the court was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to UIM coverage on the fourth vehicle, which was noted to be a Mustang. The more specific question for the court to resolve was whether the Plaintiff had UIM coverage in the amount of $900,000.00 ($300,000.00 multiplied by three vehicles) or $1.2 million dollars ($300,000.00 multiplied by four vehicles).
The carrier asserted that, because it never provided liability coverage on the Plaintiff’s Mustang, the carrier was never required to also offer the Plaintiff’s UIM coverage on that vehicle.
The Defendant carrier produced a portion of the insurance policy it issued to the Plaintiff which confirmed that the Mustang was “not covered” for liability. Rather, that vehicle was covered only for damage to the Mustang for accidents other than collision loss.
After a review of the waiver/rejection of UIM coverage statutes found at 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1731 and §1734, the court agreed with the carrier’s position and found that, because the Mustang was not insured for liability purposes, the Defendant carrier was never required to offer UIM benefits on that vehicle. As such, no signed waiver of UIM benefits with respect to the Mustang was required by law.
According to the Opinion, there was no dispute that the Defendant insurance company insured the four (4) personal vehicles of the Plaintiff. There was also no dispute that the Plaintiff had UIM coverage in the amount of $300,000.00 on three of the four personal vehicles.
The question before the court was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to UIM coverage on the fourth vehicle, which was noted to be a Mustang. The more specific question for the court to resolve was whether the Plaintiff had UIM coverage in the amount of $900,000.00 ($300,000.00 multiplied by three vehicles) or $1.2 million dollars ($300,000.00 multiplied by four vehicles).
The carrier asserted that, because it never provided liability coverage on the Plaintiff’s Mustang, the carrier was never required to also offer the Plaintiff’s UIM coverage on that vehicle.
The Defendant carrier produced a portion of the insurance policy it issued to the Plaintiff which confirmed that the Mustang was “not covered” for liability. Rather, that vehicle was covered only for damage to the Mustang for accidents other than collision loss.
After a review of the waiver/rejection of UIM coverage statutes found at 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1731 and §1734, the court agreed with the carrier’s position and found that, because the Mustang was not insured for liability purposes, the Defendant carrier was never required to offer UIM benefits on that vehicle. As such, no signed waiver of UIM benefits with respect to the Mustang was required by law.
Accordingly, the court ruled in favor of the Defendant
carrier on the motion presented.
Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania law firm of Summers McDonnell, Hudak & Guthrie, P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.
I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania law firm of Summers McDonnell, Hudak & Guthrie, P.C., for bringing this case to my attention.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Latest Appellate Decision on Admissibility of Intoxication Evidence in an Auto Accident Matter
For the latest appellate analysis on the issue of
admissibility of a Defendant’s alleged intoxication in a motor vehicle accident
case, see Partlow v. Gray, No. 2017 Pa.Super. 187 (Pa.
Super. June 15, 2017 Dubow, J., Solano, J., Ford Elliott, P.J.E.)(Op. by Dubow, J.).
This matter arose out of an intersectional accident involving an allegedly intoxicated defendant who made a left hand turn across the decedent’s lane of travel. The decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death and survival action.
Prior to trial, the trial court resolved several Motions In Limine, including one involving the admissibility of the defendant driver’s consumption of alcohol and intoxication, and related expert testimony.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s admission of the evidence of the defendant’s alcohol consumption and intoxication.
The Superior Court noted that evidence of a driver’s intoxication was generally relevant to reckless or careless driving allegations. However, the court reaffirmed the law that evidence of consumption of alcohol or a BAC test, by themselves, should not be admitted to prove intoxication.
Here, the court found that the Plaintiff presented additional sufficient evidence of the defendant driver’s unfitness to drive, including the police officers’ observations of the defendant driver immediately after the accident, including the officers’ observation of the defendant's bloodshot and watery eyes and lethargic behavior after the accident.
The court also noted that the plaintiff presented a BAC test results in conjunction with expert testimony regarding those results with respect to the defendant’s fitness to drive. The plaintiff’s experts opined at trial that the defendant’s measured BAC after the accident indicated that the defendant’s BAC was still a .104 at the time of the accident.
The Superior Court noted that, while each piece of the above evidence regarding the Defendant’s intoxication individually may not have been sufficient to render the evidence admissible, taken together, the evidence was sufficiently reliable and, therefore, admissible.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Opinion may click
this LINK.
This matter arose out of an intersectional accident involving an allegedly intoxicated defendant who made a left hand turn across the decedent’s lane of travel. The decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death and survival action.
Prior to trial, the trial court resolved several Motions In Limine, including one involving the admissibility of the defendant driver’s consumption of alcohol and intoxication, and related expert testimony.
On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s admission of the evidence of the defendant’s alcohol consumption and intoxication.
The Superior Court noted that evidence of a driver’s intoxication was generally relevant to reckless or careless driving allegations. However, the court reaffirmed the law that evidence of consumption of alcohol or a BAC test, by themselves, should not be admitted to prove intoxication.
Here, the court found that the Plaintiff presented additional sufficient evidence of the defendant driver’s unfitness to drive, including the police officers’ observations of the defendant driver immediately after the accident, including the officers’ observation of the defendant's bloodshot and watery eyes and lethargic behavior after the accident.
The court also noted that the plaintiff presented a BAC test results in conjunction with expert testimony regarding those results with respect to the defendant’s fitness to drive. The plaintiff’s experts opined at trial that the defendant’s measured BAC after the accident indicated that the defendant’s BAC was still a .104 at the time of the accident.
The Superior Court noted that, while each piece of the above evidence regarding the Defendant’s intoxication individually may not have been sufficient to render the evidence admissible, taken together, the evidence was sufficiently reliable and, therefore, admissible.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 11,
2017).
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Bad Faith Claim Dismissed Where Delays Found To Be Caused by Insured
In his recent decision in the property loss bad faith
case of Turner v. State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co., No. 3:15-CV-906, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81922 (M.D. Pa. May 30,
2017 Conaboy, J.), Judge Richard P. Conaboy provides an excellent summary of
the current status of bad faith law and reviews the validity of bringing a bad
faith claim where the insured's own conduct allegedly led to the delays at
issue.
In the end, the court granted the carrier's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the bad faith claims presented.
Anyone wishing to review this decision may click HERE.
I send thanks to Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia, PA law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris, and writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog, for bringing this case to my attention (Click HERE to check out that Blog).
 |
| Judge Richard P. Conaboy M.D. Pa. |
I send thanks to Lee Applebaum of the Philadelphia, PA law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris, and writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog, for bringing this case to my attention (Click HERE to check out that Blog).
Friday, July 21, 2017
Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Addresses Coverage Issues in a Declaratory Judgment Action
In the case of Penn National Ins. Co. v. Kapinus, No. 2016 - CV - 3379 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 12, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon sustained in part and denied in part an insured's Preliminary Objections in a declaratory judgment action on coverage.
In this matter a commercial insurance carrier who issued a liability policy to business owned by the father of a personal injury plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment seeking a judicial declaration that it need not provide coverage on the son's claims given that the father misrepresented information as to whether his son had worked for the father's business in the past.
In his preliminary objections, the son asserted that material misrepresentations in this context must relate to the application for insurance and not to alleged fraud in the later prosecution of a claim. Judge Nealon disagreed with this assertion and denied the preliminary objections in this regard.
The court did sustain the son's preliminary objections that asserted the the duty to cooperate under the policy only pertained to the defense of the underlying matter and not with respect to the carrier's efforts to gather information with respect to a decision to deny coverage under the policy.
Anyone wishing to review this opinion by Judge Nealon in the Kapinus case may email me at dancummins@comcast.net.
In this matter a commercial insurance carrier who issued a liability policy to business owned by the father of a personal injury plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment seeking a judicial declaration that it need not provide coverage on the son's claims given that the father misrepresented information as to whether his son had worked for the father's business in the past.
In his preliminary objections, the son asserted that material misrepresentations in this context must relate to the application for insurance and not to alleged fraud in the later prosecution of a claim. Judge Nealon disagreed with this assertion and denied the preliminary objections in this regard.
The court did sustain the son's preliminary objections that asserted the the duty to cooperate under the policy only pertained to the defense of the underlying matter and not with respect to the carrier's efforts to gather information with respect to a decision to deny coverage under the policy.
Anyone wishing to review this opinion by Judge Nealon in the Kapinus case may email me at dancummins@comcast.net.
Copy of Facebook Decision in Clapsadle Case Secured
The decision can be accessed online HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney Matthew S. Crosby of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP for providing me with a copy of this decision.
The Facebook Discovery Scorecard can always be accessed by going to www.TortTalk.com and scrolling down the right hand column and clicking on the date noted under "Facebook Discovery Scorecard." There are Links to all of the Facebook decisions noted on that Scorecard.
Here is a shortcut LINK to the Facebook Discovery Scorecard for your easy reference.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Link To Interesting Article on the Evolution of Self-Driven Vehicles To Date
The advent of self-driven vehicles appears to be upon as as the technology continues to be developed.
Here is a LINK to an interesting article written by noted liability expert Steven M. Schorr and Joseph R. Fowler entitled "Self-Driven: The Path Towards Autonomous Vehicles." In this article, Mr. Schorr and Mr. Fowler provide a history of the evolution of motor vehicles towards the eventual introduction of self-driving vehicles to the public.
According to the article, the technology still needs to be developed substantially further before truly autonomous vehicle will be set loose on the roadways.
But there may come some day when auto law practitioners and the courts in Pennsylvania will have to grapple with new legal issues that may arise out of motor vehicle accidents involving autonomous vehicles. These issues may include the liability of the person "operating" such vehicle as well as potentially products liability issues with respect to the technology involved.
Here is a LINK to an interesting article written by noted liability expert Steven M. Schorr and Joseph R. Fowler entitled "Self-Driven: The Path Towards Autonomous Vehicles." In this article, Mr. Schorr and Mr. Fowler provide a history of the evolution of motor vehicles towards the eventual introduction of self-driving vehicles to the public.
According to the article, the technology still needs to be developed substantially further before truly autonomous vehicle will be set loose on the roadways.
But there may come some day when auto law practitioners and the courts in Pennsylvania will have to grapple with new legal issues that may arise out of motor vehicle accidents involving autonomous vehicles. These issues may include the liability of the person "operating" such vehicle as well as potentially products liability issues with respect to the technology involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
