Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Found to Exist Based on Actions of the Distributor for the Corporation

In the products liability case of Merino v. Repak, B.V., No. 135 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Dec. 6, 2022 Bowes, J., McCaffery, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by McCaffery, J.), a Defendant company operating out of the Netherlands filed an appeal from a trial court Order overruling its Preliminary Objection to personal jurisdiction. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s Order.

In so ruling, the Superior Court rejected the Defendant’s arguments that the trial court had erred and abused its discretion when the trial court exercised personal jurisdiction over the foreign company based upon either the Defendant’s independent contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or its relationship with a Co-Defendant company.

The Superior Court noted that the trial court properly exercised specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer with no minimum contacts of its own within the forum. The court found that, based upon the actions and contacts of the foreign manufacturer’s exclusive distributor, with whom the manufacturer had a close agency relationship, jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer was warranted.

The Superior Court found that the Co-Defendant distributor had acted as an agent for the foreign manufacturer by selling the manufacturers products to customers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 27, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Elena Mozhvilo at www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Analyzes Discoverability of Peer Review Documents in Medical Malpractice Case

In the case of Sanders v. Children’s Hosp. of Phila., No. 646 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Nov. 22, 2022 Bowes, J., McLaughlin, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.) (McLaughlin, J., concurring/dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s decision relative to a Defendant hospital’s challenges on alleged privileged documents in a Plaintiff’s medical malpractice wrongful death and survival action. The appellate court found that most of the documents and reports at issue were protected from discovery by the Peer Review Protection Act or the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE Act).

According to the Opinion, the court involved twenty three (23) infants at the hospital who had allegedly contracted an adeno-virus in the hospital’s NICU. Testing allegedly revealed the presence of the virus on equipment used for an eye exam and the virus was allegedly transmitted to patients by doctors touching the equipment and then touching the patients.

A doctor who led the investigation into the matter reported to the Patient Safety Committee and held “safety huddles” using powerpoint presentations with members of the Infection Prevention and Control Department and the NICU doctors and nurses. Several conferences were also held by the Defendant medical providers as a result of which a root cause analysis report was created. The investigating doctor also published an abstract and an article about the method of transmission.

The Plaintiff sought documents at issue in discovery.

On appeal, the court ruled that certain documents were admissible and certain documents were privileged. In the opinion, the court provided a nice overview of the application of the Peer Review Protection Act and the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Judge McLaughlin can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 13, 2022).  I also send thanks to Attorney Peter Faben of Lancaster, PA for bringing this case to my attention as well.

UPDATE:  In more recent developments in this matter, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for re-argument  en banc, which was granted, causing the above initial decision to be withdrawn.  Thereafter, the case was resolved prior to the on en banc arguments.  As such, the case was concluded without any decision from the full court.  

Federal Court Finds that Relation Back Doctrine Does Not Save Party From Statute of Limitations Argument

In the case of Coleman v. W. Oilfields Supply Co., No. 4:21-CV-00090 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 6, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed statute of limitations issues in a trip and fall matter.

In this case, the Plaintiff attempted to secure leave to amend the Complaint to add another Defendant who was allegedly responsible for the condition that allegedly caused the Plaintiff’s trip and fall. That Defendant moved to dismiss the matter filed against it as being barred by the statute of limitations.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann 
M.D. Pa.

In response, the Plaintiffs argued that their claims against that new Defendant related back to the claims noted in the original timely filed Complaint.

Judge Brann granted the Motion to Dismiss and agreed with the new Defendant that the Plaintiffs could not rely upon the relation-back doctrine where there was no evidence that the Defendant in question had notice of the action within a 120 days of the date that the action was filed. Nor was there any evidence that the new Defendants should have known that the action would have been filed against it but for a mistake in identity.

The court otherwise found that the new Defendant was not so closely related to the original parties that had been given notice of the action such that notice of the lawsuit could be imputed to the new Defendant through the filing of the original Complaint against the original Defendants.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 22, 2022).

Source of top image:  Photo by Altem Maltsev on www.pexels.com.

Fly Eagles Fly

In the case of Philadelphia Eagles, LP v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-01776-MMB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2022 Baylson J.), the court denied a carrier’s Motion to Dismiss in a case involving the Philadelphia Eagles seeking coverage from their carriers for financial losses associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental closure orders.  The Eagles had a $1 Billion Dollar policy in this regard.

The carrier moved to dismiss and asserted exclusions in the policies.

The court ruled that, due to the unsettled status of Pennsylvania law on the issues presented, it was appropriate to deny the Motion to Dismiss and to allow discovery limited to the exchange of pertinent documents.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 5, 2023).

Issues of Fact Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment in Case of Slip and Fall Sustained by Ice Skater

In the case of Murphy v. Pines, No. 3:20-CV-00320 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2022 Saporito, M.J.), the court denied summary judgment after finding genuine issues of material fact existed on whether the Plaintiff, an experienced skater, was entitled to a recovery when she slipped and fell while skating on ice.  The court noted that the Plaintiff had never before skated on synthetic ice.   

In his Opinion, Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., noted that, while falling while ice skating is an inherent risk of that activity, the risks of alleged damaged surfaces are not.  The court found that the issue of assumption of the risk was for the jury to decide under the conflicting facts presented in this case.   

The court also addressed the “no duty” rule.  While the court noted that the “no duty” rule precludes liability for injuries from risk that are common, frequent, expected, and inherent in a sporting activity, and while that rule can apply when the assumption of the risk doctrine does not, the court found that issues of fact in this case prevented the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

Judge Saporito additionally addressed separate arguments raised relative to the scope and impact of the release that was signed by the Plaintiff prior to engaging in the ice skating activity at the facility.  

The court noted that the release language was boilerplate and was only located on a rental receipt.  The language was not conspicuous and was never explained to the Plaintiff or even brought to the Plaintiff’s attention.   As such, given these issues, the court ruled that the issue of whether the Release was effective to preclude a recovery would be left for the jury’s consideration. 

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

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. 

Source of top image: Photo by Efrem Efre on www.pexels.com.

Third Circuit: Unless An Automobile Insurance Carrier Issues a New Policy, No New UM/UIM Sign Down Forms Are Required

In the case of Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 861 (3rd Cir. Sept. 29, 2022 Randel, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of when an automobile insurance carrier may be required to secure updated UM/UIM sign down forms.

In this matter, when the insured had purchased the State Farm policy initially, two (2) vehicles were insured under the policy and the necessary forms were executed. Thereafter, the insured added a third vehicle. At that point in time, the insured did not execute a request for UIM coverage limits below the bodily injury coverage limits.

Thereafter, an insured under the policy was involved in a motor vehicle accident. After settling the tort claim against the Defendant driver, that Plaintiff turned to State Farm for UIM coverage. A dispute arose over the amount of UIM limits available.

The Plaintiff asserted that she should be provided with higher limits because State Farm did not secure a sign down form when another vehicle had been added to the policy. When State Farm disagreed, litigation ensued and eventually resulted in this decision.

The Plaintiff asserted that she was owed higher coverage because State Farm had not followed the requirements of 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1731 and 1734 relative to the forms at issue.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, after reviewing the existing case law, ruled that no events in the years prior to the subject motor vehicle accident triggered the obligations under §1731 and 1734 because State Farm had never issued a new policy to the insured. As such, the court found that State Farm was not obligated to seek a new written election for lower UIM coverage limits under the policy.

Rather, the court ruled that the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law only required carriers to seek elections of lower UIM coverage limits only when the carriers issue policies. State Farm was found to have satisfied their duties under the law when the secured the forms when the insured had executed the requisite forms when the policy was initially issued.

The court more specifically noted that both §1731 and 1734 expressly state that the requirements contained in those statutes apply, under §1731 when an insurance company is involved in the “delivery or issuance” of a “policy,” and §1734 applied when a carrier “issues a policy.”

The court in Geist went on to note that, once the carrier meets its obligations to secure the UIM sign down forms on a particular policy, the insurance company need not do anymore to fulfill its obligations under §1731 and 1734 during the life of that particular insurance policy.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Olia Danilvoich on www.pexels.com.

Federal Middle District Court Addresses Jurisdiction Over Accident That Occurred in Virginia

In the case of Grady v. Rothwell, No. 4:22-CV0-00428 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2022 Brann, J.), the court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction in a trucking accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff’s decedent was killed in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Virginia.

The Defendant tractor trailer driver was not a resident of Pennsylvania, nor was La-Z-Boy Logistics, which was the company for which the driver was driving.

Judge Brann found that the court lacked personal jurisdiction as there was no evidence or allegation that the corporate Defendant was “at home” in Pennsylvania. Personal jurisdiction was also not found due to the fact that the subject motor vehicle accident occurred outside of Pennsylvania.

Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann 
M.D. Pa.

Judge Brann ruled that the fact that La-Z-Boy did business nationwide, including Pennsylvania, was insufficient, in and of itself, to confer general personal jurisdiction over that party, as there was no allegation that the company had any locations or employees in Pennsylvania.

The court additionally found that there was no basis to assert specific personal jurisdiction as the underlying motor vehicle accident occurred in the State of Virginia.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 1, 2022).

Source of top image:  photo by Josiah Farrow from www.pexels.com.