LOOK AHEAD: CONSIDER SCHEDULING YOUR YEAR-END MEDIATIONS WITH CUMMINS MEDIATION NOW

                     LOOKING TO BRING YOUR CASE TO A CLOSE?

LIMITED SLOTS AVAILABLE

PLEASE CALL TODAY TO SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT

570-319-5899

dancummins@cumminslaw.net

Superior Court Rules that Carrier Must Produce Documents in Discovery in Bad Faith Action

In the case of Rheingold v. AmGuard Ins. Co., No. 1123 MDA 2025 (Pa. Super. Sept. 16, 2026 Lane, J., Kunselman, J., Ford Elliott, P. J.E.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the Superior Court denied a defendant insurance company’s appeal seeking to overrule the trial court’s decision regarding a discovery motion in a bad faith action.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant insurance company asserted the client-attorney privilege and the work product doctrine in seeking to avoid to produce certain documents in discovery in this bad faith case. 

The carrier had offered up a generalized privilege log that referenced 2,000 pages of withheld documents into five (5) broad categories. None of the documents were individually described in the privilege log.

The trial court, after an in camera review of the discovery at issue, ordered that the withheld documents be disclosed after finding the documents to be relevant, discoverable and not privileged.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed. The appellate court emphasized that, on appeal, the Defendant carrier did not address any particular document, or specify any documents or the contents of any such documents. 

The appellate court additionally noted that the Defendant carrier did not adequately explain why either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine applied to any particular document.

Given that the carrier only broadly presented the issues on appeal and failed to produce sufficient facts to show that the privileges asserted were properly invoked, the lower court’s decision was upheld.

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC, in Pittsburgh, PA.

Eastern District Federal Court Issues Sanctions For Discovery Misconduct

In the case of Malone v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2026 Wolfson, J.), the court ordered UPS to pay nearly $500,000.00 in attorney’s fees and more than $16,000.00 in costs as a sanction for discovery misconduct.

 According to the Opinion, this matter arises from a proposed class action in which the Plaintiff accused UPS of failing to compensate Pennsylvania warehouse employees for certain time at work.

The court found that UPS’s delayed disclosure of a key defense forced Plaintiffs’ counsel to reopen discovery and incur hundreds of hours of additional work.  The court found that this warrented the entry of sanctions.

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

Please Consider Planning a Night Out for a Good Cause

 

Court Finds That Discovery Rule Did Not Extend Statute of Limitations in Veterinary Malpractice Suit

In the case of Vonnieda-Lagrassa v. Pet Emergency Treatment and Specialty, Inc., No. CI-25-09074 (C.P. Lanc. Co. May 1, 2026 Brown, J.), the court addressed a Defendant veterinary office’s Preliminary Objections against a Plaintiffs’ Complaint based upon a statute of limitations defense.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of allegedly negligent treatment provided to the Plaintiffs’ dogs by a veterinary office.

The court noted that the dogs were brought to the facility on September 17, 2023 for the treatment at issue.  Unfortunately, one of the dogs died shortly after this treatment.

Thereafter, a necropsy was performed on the deceased dogs and a final report in that regard was issued on November 13, 2023. The Plaintiffs alleged that they received that report on December 8, 2023.

The court otherwise noted that the Plaintiffs later filed a Writ of Summons on December 2, 2025.

The Defendants raised their statute of limitations defense by way of Preliminary Objections.

The court noted that, while the statute of limitations defenses is more properly raised in a New Matter and not by Preliminary Objections, such a defense may be raised by way of a Preliminary Objection where the defense is established on the face of the Complaint.

Reviewing the record before it, the court rejected the Plaintiffs’ efforts to argue that Pennsylvania's discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations.

The court found that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations in this case because the Plaintiffs had actual or constructive inquiry notice on the day that their dog was discharged from the care of the veterinary office. More specifically, the court found that the record confirmed that, at the time of discharge, the Plaintiffs were on notice of both the alleged significant harm and factual causal link to the Defendant’s conduct. The court rejected the argument that the later necropsy report should be deemed to have delayed the accrual date for the statute of limitations.

As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections based upon the statute of limitations and dismissed the matter.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 9, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Mikhail Nilov on www.pexels.com.

Superior Court Rules That Trial Court Erred in Not Giving Increased Risk of Harm Jury Instruction

In the case of Smith v. Timar, Nos. 1942 EDA 2024 and 1973 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 9, 2026 Dubow, J., Sullivan, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Stabile, J.) (dissenting Op. by Sullivan, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed situations as to when an “increased risk of harm” jury instruction may be applicable where causation is disputed in certain professional negligence causes of action.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a Plaintiff who sought out treatment from a Defendant chiropractor for lower back pain. The Plaintiff alleged that the chiropractor performed an allegedly unnecessary cervical spine manipulation that allegedly resulted in an arterial dissection, or a tear in the artery within the spinal column that supplies blood to the brain. The Plaintiff further alleged that that injury resulted in a stroke that left the Plaintiff with permanent impairments.

At trial, the Plaintiff presented a medical expert who offered an opinion that the Defendant chiropractor’s manipulation of the Plaintiff’s neck resulted in an increase risk of a vertebral artery dissection. Despite the provision of this expert testimony offered by the Plaintiff, the trial court refused to give an increased risk of harm jury instruction under a belief that such an instruction would confuse the jury.

Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict finding negligence against the Defendant chiropractor but not causation.

On appeal, Judge Stabile reviewed the Pennsylvania law regarding the increased risk of harm jury instruction. Based upon that review of the law, Judge Stabile concluded that the trial court erred in refusing to give the requested "increased risk of harm" jury instruction.

In so ruling, the court noted that the "increased risk of harm" jury instruction “is necessary to avoid imposing on Plaintiffs a potentially impossible burden of proven causation where the Defendants misfeasance is one of several factors that might have contributed to the Plaintiff’s injury.”

The Superior Court ruled that the "increased risk of harm" jury instruction should have been provided so that the Defendant could not use other potential contributing factors as a shield behind which the Defendants may be protected from answering for their alleged negligence.

The court on appeal noted that, where the Plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to warrant the provision of such a jury instruction to the jury, and where the absence of that "increased risk of harm" jury instruction could not be said to have been a harmless error, the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial limited on the issues of causation and damages.

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


Source: The Pa. Super. Blog by Jon Bruno of Bruno Litigation, LLC in Pittsburgh, PA.

Source of image:  Photo by kaboompic on www.pexels.com.

Court Strikes Untimely Jury Demand

In the case of Core5 at Route 100, LLC v. Lowhill Township, No. 2025-C-0308 (C.P. Leh. Co. June 23, 2026 Johnson, J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike a defendant’s untimely jury demand.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant’s demand for a jury trial was submitted more than five months after the last permissible pleading in one of the consolidated actions in this matter, and more than seven months after the last permissible pleading in the other consolidated action.

The court additionally noted that the Defendants had also signed a joint Stipulation that scheduled a non-jury trial.

While the court acknowledged that the Pennsylvania Constitution protects the right to a jury trial, Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent had previously held that defendants may waive a jury demand if the demand for a jury trial is made more than twenty (20) days after the last permissible pleading and not in compliance with Pa. R.C.P. 1007.1(a).

The court also rejected the Defendant’s attempt to rely upon Pa. R.C.P. 126(a) which calls for the liberal application of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The court exercised its discretion and concluded that it should adhere to the wording of Rule 1007.1(a).

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 17, 2026).