Court Finds in Favor of Insurance Company in Fire Loss Case

In the case of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Russell, Feb. Term 2023, No. 0070 (C.P. Phila. Co. June 13, 2025 Garcia, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting that the Superior Court uphold the trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s post-trial motions in a property damage fire loss subrogation case.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of a Plaintiff property insurance company in a subrogation action for damages sustained to the insured’s property as a result of a fire.

In this case, the Plaintiff’s insured owned a property adjacent to the Defendant’s property. The Defendant had hired a neighborhood handyman to fix a hole in the roof of the Defendant’s property.

During the repair, a tenant in the Plaintiff’s insured’s property observed individuals on the roof of the Defendant’s property using an open flame while working. Shortly thereafter, the tenant saw smoke coming from the Defendant’s property. The fire department then arrived and extinguished a fire centered around the Defendant’s skylight.

The Defendant acknowledged the existence of the fire, which had resulted in smoke and water damage to the Plaintiff’s insured’s property. The Plaintiff insurance company paid for the property damages sustained by its insured, along with lost rent, and then sought reimbursement from the Defendant through this subrogation action.

In this matter, the trial court found that the Defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring a competent and careful contractor for work involving significant risk if not skillfully handled, all as articulated by §411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The court emphasized that the Defendant knew that the handyman was not a qualified roofer, and that the handyman’s lack of skill, necessary precautions, and failure to have proper equipment all increased the risk of a fire during a hazardous roof repair involving an open flame. The evidence otherwise demonstrated that precaution to prevent or minimize fire damage were not taken.

As such, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff insurance company and awarded damages. The Defendant filed a post-trial Motion, arguing lack of evidence regarding negligence. That Motion was denied.

As noted, with this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s post-trial Motions.

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. 25, 2025).

Trial Court Dismisses Claim of Non-Trepassory Invasion Asserted Against a Defendant in a Fire Loss Case

In the case of Pursell v. DTB Services, LLC, No. 691-CV-2025 (C.P. Monroe Co. Sept. 22, 2025 C. Daniel Higgins, J.), the court sustained certain Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in a fire loss case.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant is a company that engages in the business of installing, servicing, and repairing gas fireplaces. The Plaintiffs are homeowners who utilized the Defendant’s services.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were negligent in providing inspection and repair work on the Plaintiff’s gas fireplace.

More specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiffs that the outside vent to the fireplace was low-grade and dangerously close to combustibles. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants did not recommend any urgent corrective action or that the fireplace should not be used.

Thereafter, a fire occurred. The Plaintiffs contended that the fire was the result of combustibles located near the venting system igniting.

In one of the Counts of their Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants’ acts and/or omissions interfered with the Plaintiffs’ right of peaceful enjoyment of their real property. The Plaintiffs otherwise alleged in that Count that the Defendant committed a non-trespassory invasion of the Plaintiffs’ property by way of the Defendants’ negligent conduct and that the invasion caused the fire. The Defendants filed a Preliminary Objection to this Count asserting that the Plaintiffs failed to plead any facts that could be considered to be an invasion of their privacy.

The court noted that a claim for interference with the right of peaceful enjoyment of one’s real property is based on the private nuisance doctrine. The court noted that this doctrine is governed under Pennsylvania law by §822 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The court noted that, under §822l, liability exists in this regard only if the contested “conduct is the legal cause of an invasion of another’s interests in the private use and enjoyment of any land.” Under the law, such an invasion must be either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities.

The court noted that an “invasion” in this context has been identified under the law as occurring when a Plaintiff’s property interests have been encroached by something that has come onto the property against the Plaintiff’s will.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff did not assert any facts that would allow for a jury to presume that the Plaintiff did not voluntarily use Defendant’s services and invite them onto to their property for the inspection and/or maintenance of their fireplace.

Accordingly, the court found that, regardless of whether or not the Defendant’s actions at the Plaintiffs’ home were the cause of the fire, such actions did not constitute an invasion as that term is identified by the law. Accordingly, the court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer to this Count of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Richard (Ricky) E. Santee, Esquire of the Bethlehem, PA law firm of Shay, Santee, Kelhart & Deschler, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Allows Civil Rights Claim to Proceed Regarding Fatal Fire Case

In the case of McDonald v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, No. 24-CV-0057 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2025 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a state-created danger claim but denied civil rights claims asserted against the Philadelphia Housing Authority in a case involving a fatal fire.

According to Opinion, this civil rights action arose out of the deaths of twelve (12) individuals following a fire at a residential apartment building owned and managed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Among the allegations was an allegation that the Defendant did not have any working smoke detectors in the building at the time, a fact that was allegedly known by certain employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs alleged that, because of the lack of working smoke detectors, the occupants of the building were not alerted to the fire until it was too late.

After reviewing the record before the court, the judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of a state-created danger.

However, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims of municipal liability under the civil rights act. The court rejected the Defendants’ argument that the civil rights claims should be dismissed on the grounds that the state-created danger claims were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims were different from the state-created danger claims and had different requirements. Accordingly, the court found that the City’s sole reliance on the court’s dismissal of the state-created danger claims as the basis for its requested dismissal of the civil rights claims was misplaced.

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


Source – Article: “Judge Rejects City’s Efforts To Toss Liability Claims for Phila. Fatal Apartment Fire.” By Nicholas Malfitano of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 20, 2025).

Bad Faith Claim Goes Up In Smoke In Fire Loss Claim - But Right To Amend Allowed

In the case of Wendolowski v. Erie Insurance, No. 2023-CV-3806 (C.P. Lacka. Co. July 14, 2025 Nealon, J.), the court addressed Preliminary Objections filed by a carrier challenging the legal sufficiency of the insured’s bad faith claim arising out of a fire loss.

The court noted that, to recover for statutory bad faith, an insured must establish that the carrier did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and, that the carrier knew, or recklessly disregarded, its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

In this matter, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s Complaint baldly alleged that the carrier acted in bad faith in failing to pay his claimed loss in full. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not provide any facts arguably supporting any conclusion that the carrier lacked a reasonable basis for disputing the extent of the laws or that the carrier knew or recklessly disregarded the absence of such a reasonable basis.

As such, the court granted the carrier’s demurrer to the insured’s bad faith claim. However, the insured was permitted to file an Amended Complaint in an effort to provide the requisite factual support for a statutory bad faith claim.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Kurt Hudspeth on www.pexels.com.

Court Denies Carrier's Motion For Summary Judgment on Residency Issue in Fire Loss Coverage Claim

In the case of Jackson v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-012244-NBF (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2025 Fischer, J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant insurance carrier against claim for breach of contract and bad faith asserted by the Plaintiff relative to an homeowner’s policy and a fire loss. The court granted the defense motion as to the Plaintiff’s claim of bad faith but otherwise denied the motion.

The central question in this case was whether the Defendant insurance company had wrongfully refused to pay coverage for losses sustained by the Plaintiff’s after the Plaintiff's property was damaged in a fire.

The Defendant carrier had denied coverage on the grounds that the property was not the Plaintiff’s “residence,” and that the policy was void due to the Plaintiff’s material misrepresentation during the defense investigation. 

More specifically, the carrier asserted that the carrier falsely represented that the property was his primary residence and that it was not vacant and unoccupied. The Defendant carrier noted that the property lacked any electricity of sewer service.

The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment on the breach of contract claims after finding, in part, that the policy in question did not restrict coverage to the Plaintiff’s primary residence. Rather, the court found that the policy expressly insured the identified property.

The court held that there was an issue of material fact as to whether or not the property was the Plaintiff’s residence. The Plaintiff had noted that he was sporadically sleeping at the property while completing renovations.

The court also found that the Defendant carrier had failed to establish that the Plaintiff made any statements regarding his residence at the property with knowledge of their alleged falsity or under an alleged deliberate intent to deceive.

The court otherwise denied the Defendant carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the bad faith claim after finding that the Defendant had a reasonable basis for denying coverage.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 20, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Andrew Gaines on www.unsplash.com.

Bad Faith Action in Fire Loss Insurance Coverage Case Dismissed

In the case of Mohanan v. Liberty Mut. Pers. Ins. Co., No. 2:22-CV-02956-RBS (E.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2023 Surrick, J.), the court granted a Defendant insurance company’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims of violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices & Consumers Protection Law, negligence, and bad faith relative to coverage questions related to the alleged smoke damage to a property.

The court found that the Plaintiff’s had failed to establish any deceptive conduct on the part of the carrier in terms of the carrier’s investigation and handling of the claim. The court also found that the Plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence of any act or omission by the carrier in terms of any alleged misrepresentations of the coverage available.

The court in this case otherwise ruled that the Plaintiff’s negligence claim was barred by the gist of the action doctrine in this breach of contract case.

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff had not pled any facts to explain why the carrier’s investigation was unreasonable.

The court additionally rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that the carrier had a special relationship with the Plaintiffs simply by virtue of the fact that the Plaintiffs had purchased an insurance policy. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of a heightened duty of care owed to the Plaintiff was rejected.

The court additionally noted that the parties had agreed that various references to treble damages, the request for attorneys’ fees, and the request for punitive damages and consequential damages should be stricken from Complaint as improper.

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 (Dec. 14, 2023).

Strict Liability Failure to Warn Claims Fail Where Plaintiffs Did Not Read Warnings

In the case of Mains v. The Sherwin-Williams Co., 5:20-CV-00112 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2022 Gallagher, J.), the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania addressed the validity of a warning defect theory put forth by a Plaintiff in a products liability case.

This matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff's deck caught on fire.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the product they used to stain their deck self-heated and caused a fire on their property.  More specifically, the Plaintiff's alleged that they placed application materials with the product left on it on the lawn next to the dect after which those items spontaneously caught fire.   

The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s warning defect theory failed as a matter of law because the Plaintiff admitted in this case that they never even read the warning label on the Defendant’s product.

The court therefore found that an unread warning could not be a cause of an injury in a products liability claim. 

The court also noted that the Plaintiff did not show any way that a “reminder warning” might have prevented the accident.

In this particular matter, the court also found that the Plaintiff’s failure to warn claim was also preempted by the Hazardous Substances Act because that Act did not require the Defendant to include a spontaneous combusting warning on the label as a principal hazard.

The court also confirmed that, in any event, the warning label on the product contained the words 'DANGER' and 'COMBUSTIBLE,' and further informed users of the product that 'rags, steel wool, other waste soaked with this product...may catch fire if impropertly discarded.'  Users were advised to discard such waste in a sealed water filled metal container.     

The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff was unable to establish any design or manufacturing defect because the Plaintiff’s lacked any expert evidence that the product, whether it was defective or not, actually caused the fire that injured them.

The court confirmed that the Plaintiff did not identify a cause and origin expert with regards to the fire in question. It was additionally held that lay opinion testimony is speculative and no substitute for expert fire causation testimony, particularly where there were possible alternative origins for the fire in this case. The court also noted that scientific knowledge about the chemical components of the product and their corresponding combustibility was beyond the understanding of a layperson and, therefore, required the testimony of an expert.

The court also found that the Plaintiff could not rely upon a malfunction theory of liability to establish an alleged manufacturing defect because the Plaintiffs did not have the expert testimony necessary to eliminate other possible causes.

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s implied warranty of merchantability claim was similar to a strict liability claim and that this implied warranty of merchantability claim failed because the Plaintiffs were not able to establish a product defect.

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


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

Source of Image:  Photo by Pontius Wellgraf on www. Pexels.com.

Spoliation Claim Rejected in Fire Loss Case

In the case of State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947(E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2020 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in a case arising out of an appliance fire in a home. 

One of the issues addressed in this case was an allegation of spoliation of the product by the Defendant. The court rejected this claim in a case where the product, which was allegedly poorly maintained by the Defendant and allegedly led to the fire, disappeared. 

The court stated that there was no dispositive evidence in the record that the Defendant, as opposed to the Plaintiff, caused the product to go missing. Nor was there any evidence of an intent on the part of the Defendant to destroy any evidence. The court additionally noted that mere negligence with regards to a disappearance of evidence does not support a spoliation argument. As such, the request for an adverse spoliation inference against the Defendant was not granted.

The court also went on to rule that, without either the production or an adverse inference, the Plaintiff was unable to prove causation with respect to the fire. It was noted that no expert evidence was provided with regard to any alleged poor maintenance of the product. 

The court noted that negligence claims based upon damages caused by appliance fires generally require expert opinion with respect to the issue of causation. The court otherwise indicated that lay witness testimony that most of the fire damage appeared to be near where the product had been located is insufficient to meet the burden of proof on causation. 

For these reasons, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defense.

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

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.

Another Court Says No Bad Faith Where No Underlying Coverage Under Policy

In the case of Campbell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 2:18-cv-00292 (W.D. Pa. July 18, 2018 Hornak, J.), the court granted a carrier’s Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit filed against the carrier for breach of contract for failing to pay for fire damage to the Plaintiff’s home and for bad faith related to an alleged denial of the claim for coverage without a legal basis to do so.  

The court ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to state a valid cause of action with regards to the breach of contract claim and the coverage issues presented in this fire loss case.  More specifically, the court found that the premises in question did not meet the policy definition of residential premises so as to entitle the insured to coverage under the policy.  

The court noted that, in light of the dismissal of the breach of contract claim after the finding of no coverage under the policy, the Plaintiff’s bad faith claim could not survive in the absence of any coverage under the policy.  As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint as dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.

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

I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum, the writer of the excellent Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law blog and of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman, Krekstein & Harris for bringing this case to my attention. 

Click HERE to check out Attorney Applebaum's bad faith case law Blog.

Gist of the Action Doctrine Held to Bar Negligence Claim

In the case of Weiss v. Nazareth Mutual Insurance Company, No. 6293-Civil-2017 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 5, 2018 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted Preliminary Objections under the gist of the action doctrine in a case arising out of an insurance claim following a fire loss.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff claimed that, following the fire, the Plaintiff’s property was burglarized.   As such, the Plaintiff submitted a claim to the insurance carrier with respect to the personal property that was allegedly stolen.   In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted that the carrier had not acted upon his claim for some of the lost personal property.  

The Complaint additionally contained claims against a remediation company who worked on the premises following the fire.   The Plaintiff alleged that the remediation company removed some of the Plaintiff’s property during the remediation project and never returned it to the Plaintiff.   That remediation company filed various Preliminary Objections to the Complaint.  

Judge David J. Williamson
Monroe County

In part, the remediation company asserted that the Plaintiff’s claims of negligence were barred by the gist of the action doctrine.   Judge Williamson agreed, finding that this case was primarily a contract action and that the allegations of the negligence claim were nearly identical to those pled in the contract claim.  As such, the negligence claim was stricken from the Complaint on the basis of the gist of the action doctrine.  

In another notable decision in this Opinion, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress after finding that the Plaintiff had failed to assert any physical harm as required by the elements of that cause of action. 

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

Source:  “Digest of Recent Cases.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 24, 2018).  

Court Upholds Carrier's Right to Deny Coverage For Material Misrepresentations After Fire Loss

In the Western District Federal Court case of American National Property and Casualty Co. v. Felix, No. 3:16-cv-147 (April 11, 2018 Gibson, J.), the court granted the carrier Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims of bad faith asserted.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of the carrier’s denial of the insured’s claim under a homeowner’s policy after the insured’s home was damaged by fire.  

Part of the issues raised in this matter included an allegation that the insured had submitted material misrepresentations to the carrier after the fire loss in that he, in part, asserted that diamond stud earrings and a Louis Vuitton purse were lost in the fire.  During the carrier’s investigation, the carrier consulted with the insured’s ex-fiancé who confirmed that she was in possession of the diamond stud earrings and the Louis Vuitton purse that the insured claimed had been lost in the fire.  

After securing a legal opinion on whether the policy could be voided due to an alleged material misrepresentation by the insured, the carrier decided to deny the claim and to file a lawsuit against the insured for a Declaratory Judgment to seek judicial confirmation that the carrier was not required to provide coverage to the insured based upon alleged material misrepresentations.   The carrier also included a claim against the insured for civil insurance fraud in the Complaint.  

The insured responded by filing an Answer and Counterclaims for breach of contract and statutory bad faith. 

The case later came before the court on cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.  

After reviewing the current status of Pennsylvania law pertaining to Pennsylvania’s Bad Faith Statute and applying the same to the record before it, the court granted the carrier’s motion and denied the insured’s motion.  

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

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Rauch, along with Attorneys Richard McMonigle and Brian Shay of Post & Schell for bringing this case to my attention.