TORT TALK TIP

At a Mediation, the goal is to settle, not to win.

And, remember, you and your client can win by settling.

(570) 319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Addresses Stacking Issues

In the case of Thiry v. LM General Ins. Co., No. GD18-0143 (C.P. Allegh. Co. Dec. 30, 2020 Connolly, J.), the court addressed issues with respect to UIM stacking.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s father purchased automobile insurance coverage from the carrier in 2012 and, as part of the application process, signed appropriate UM/UIM coverage forms. As part of the forms executed, the Plaintiff’s father waived stacked limits of UIM coverage for himself and members of his household. At that time, three (3) vehicles were insured under the policy.

That policy was renewed for the three (3) original vehicles on two (2) subsequent occasions. Non-stacking endorsements were issued at each renewal.

Then, in March of 2015, the family purchased a fourth vehicle that was added to the policy. An amended Declarations page was issued listing four (4) vehicles, as well as an identification card for the new vehicle. However, no other paperwork was issued at that time.

The policy, which now covered four (4) vehicles was again renewed in September of 2015.

Almost a year later, in August of 2016, the Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a U-Haul vehicle being driven by a friend.

The Plaintiff collected the liability limits of the driver’s personal policy and the UIM limits from the U-Haul’s insurer.

The Plaintiff then sought UIM coverage from the Defendant carrier in this matter, arguing that he was a resident relative under his father’s policy.

The UIM carrier that provided coverage under the father’s policy paid the Plaintiff the non-stacked UIM limits of $250,000.00 but refused to agree to stacked coverage for the other remaining three (3) vehicles under that policy.

The Plaintiff filed this coverage action, claiming that he was entitled to stacked UIM coverage because the addition of the fourth vehicle on the policy represented a new purchase of insurance and that, therefore, a new waiver of stacking was required in order for the carrier to take the position it was asserting in this matter.

After his analysis of the facts and the current status of Pennsylvania law, the court ruled that the policy should be read to provide stacked limits on all four (4) vehicles, thereby entitling the Plaintiff to pursue additional UIM benefits under the policy. In so ruling, this court reviewed the appellate court’s decisions in Sackett I, Sackett II, and Sackett III.

The court ruled that, under these Sackett decisions and other on point state court decision compel the conclusion that a new stacking waiver was required under the facts presented in this case. As such, the court found that the Plaintiff was entitled to stacked UIM benefits under the policy in question.

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

I send thanks to Attorney John A. Biedrzycki of the Pittsburgh, PA office of Biedrzycki Law Office for bringing this case to my attention.

Disability Discrimination Claim Based Upon Plaintiff's Use of Medical Marijuana Rejected

  

In the case of Palmiter v. Commonwealth Health System, Inc., No. 20-CV-2544 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 10, 2020 Nealon, J.), an employment litigation based upon a claim of disability discrimination, the court ruled that, since the Plaintiff’s allegation that she was a patient who was authorized by the state to use medical marijuana for certain medical conditions failed to amount to an allegation that she had a “disability” under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the Plaintiff was found unable to state a claim for employment discrimination in violation of the Act. 

As such, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections asserted by the defense. 

The court found that it was free and clear from any doubt, based upon the fact alleged in the Complaint, that the Plaintiff could not establish the requisite disability under the PHRA. As such, the Complaint was dismissed.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 5, 2021).

UPDATE: Judge Nealon's decision was affirmed on appeal.  The appellate court opinion can be found at Palmiter v. Scranton Quincy Clinic Co., No. 498 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Aug. 10, 2021 Dubow, J., Bowes, J., Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Bowes, J.).

In a case of first impression upon appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that an employee fired for their status as a certified medical marijuana user may sue for wrongful termination. The court noted that the Plaintiff could pursue a claim for wrongful discharge under the Medical Marijuana Act after her hospital employer discharged her for a positive drug test.

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

UPCOMING CLE OF NOTE AVAILABLE -- PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING TO ATTEND (Non-Members Welcome for a fee)

 

Court Rules That Vehicle Caused To Suddenly Stop in Traffic Could Potentially Be Liable to Operator of Vehicle that Rear Ended the Stopped Vehicle

In the case of Cleveland Brothers Equipment Co., Inc. v. Vorobey, No. 4:19-CV-01708 (M.D.Pa. 2020 Brann, J.), the court addressed whether the sudden stoppage of a vehicle ahead on the roadway, which is followed by a rear-end collision, can result in liability on the stopping vehicle.

In reviewing the Motion for Summary Judgment in this case, the court reviewed the facts of a multi-vehicle accident. According to the Opinion, there was an earlier accident on the opposite side of the highway, as a result of which, some debris allegedly spilled over into the other side of the highway, causing traffic to stop or slow on that side of the highway.  A tractor trailer driver came to a stop in the stopped traffic and, shortly thereafter, several vehicles were allegedly rear-ended by another commercial vehicle.

The Defendant tractor trailer driver who had stopped ahead was the party who filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter asserting that the operator of rear-ending vehicle who asserted liability claims against the stopped tractor trailer driver could not establish liability on the stopped vehicle.

Judge Brann indicated that the issues of liability presented was one to be decided by a jury. The court also noted that “sudden stoppage of a vehicle on the roadway…may create factual issues surrounding the proximate cause of an accident involving rear-end collision behind the stopped vehicle.” 

The court in this regard cited to the cases of Doland v. Berrios, 2014 WL 3809962 at *3 (M.D. Pa. 2014) and Gensemer v. Williams, 419 F.2d 1361, 1362 (3d. Cir. 1970) in support of its decision. 

As such, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment and allowed the issues to proceed to the jury.


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

Source of images: Stanley Nguma on www.pexels.com

Volunteer Jurors Needed For Second Round of Lackawanna Mock Trial Competition

 

Law of Nuisance Applied to Noisy Rooster

Thank God there are lawyers to settle important disputes.

In the case of Batchelor v. Schwartz, No. 2018-08910-IR (C.P. Chester Co. June 15, 2020 Tunnell, J.), the court ruled that the crowing of a Defendant’s rooster caused significant harm to a person of normal sensibility such that the Plaintiffs were granted a judgment in their favor on a nuisance claim.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant lived near each other in a residential neighborhood. The Defendant had a backyard farm that included chickens, a rooster, and other farm animals.

The Plaintiffs filed this nuisance claim, asserting that the Defendant’s rooster made loud, repetitive noises which kept the Plaintiffs, their family members, and guest awake at night. One of the Plaintiffs had even sought help for sleep disorders.

The court reaffirmed Pennsylvania law on nuisance claims. A nuisance can be found under Pennsylvania law where a personal engages in an unreasonable use of property which results in some type of injury to another person’s legitimate enjoyment of their own property. The test is whether or not the Defendant’s activity caused significant harm to a person of normal or reasonable sensibilities.

The court found that the prolonged situation involved in this case was significantly harmful and constituted an unlawful invasion of the Plaintiff’s right to enjoy their property.

The court’s decision was based, in part, on medical evidence presented relating to one of the Plaintiffs, testimony regarding sleep disturbances to others due to the rooster, and the court’s own review of audio evidence of the noise caused by the rooster’s crowing which was noted to be quite loud even inside the Plaintiffs’ home.

In ruling for the Plaintiffs, the court ordered the Defendant to abate the nuisance by placing the rooster in a barn overnight.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 5, 2021).

Source of image:  fameimages.com