Article: Remedies for Late Payment of Settlement Funds

The below article of mine recently appeared in the June 18, 2026 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission.

Remedies for Late Payment of Settlement Funds

June 18, 2026

By

Daniel E. Cummins


In most instances, once a civil litigation matter is settled, the defendant’s liability insurance carrier promptly issues payment. In this regard, the carrier has an interest in both protecting its insured in this regard and in closing out another file. However, in rare instances, a settlement payment may be delayed for an inordinate period of time for one reason or another.

When a settlement payment is delayed, plaintiffs have options to compel the production of the settlement payment or to secure sanctions against the defendant relative to the delay. Most settlement agreements themselves outline when payment is due. And, whether or not there is such a provision in a release regarding the timing of a payment, plaintiffs also have the benefit of the mandate under Pa.R.C.P. 229.1, which requires that the settlement payment be “delivered … within 20 calendar days from the defendant’s receipt of an executed release.”

In terms of the status of Pennsylvania law in this regard, it is often said by many that, if one needs a thorough overview of the current status of a particular area of the law, one should look for a decision on the issue written by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. This advice holds true with Nealon’s recent opinion in the case of Hill v. Riverside Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, No. 2023-CV-3399 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 22, 2026 Nealon, J.), in which Nealon addressed the topic of remedies available to a plaintiff under Pa.R.C.P. 229.1 where a defendant fails to produce a settlement payment in a timely fashion after the receipt of an executed release.

According to the opinion, this matter involved a professional liability action against the health care and rehab center. The plaintiff’s decedent’s had been a patient at the defendant’s facility. The defendant facility owner at issue in this case eventually became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy.

During the course of this litigation, the parties agreed to participate in a settlement conference with a private mediator. Prior to the mediation, the defendant’s attorney confirmed in writing that the parent and affiliate entities of the defendant were insolvent and in bankruptcy proceedings. Defense counsel also confirmed that, as such, the defendant would not be able to satisfy the first $75,000 of any settlement as that represented the amount of the defendant’s deductible, but that any obligation above that amount would be covered by the defendant’s liability insurance policy.

As a result of the mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement for a net payment of $175,000. The total amount of the party’s settlement was actually $250,000 but the plaintiff agreed to waive the defendant’s payment of its $75,000 deductible. The net settlement payment of $175,000 was to be paid entirely by the defendant’s liability insurance carrier.

The court’s opinion emphasized that the insurance company’s adjuster had agreed to the settlement without any indication of any coverage issues existing between the defendant and its insurance company.

After the settlement, the plaintiff proceeded to court on a petition for court approval of the settlement in this death case. The court granted the Plaintiff’s petition and approved the settlement. The parties then executed the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff’s counsel then sent the signed release, the court order approving the settlement and other closing documents to the defendant’s counsel and requested the settlement payment.

In his opinion in this Hill case, Nealon emphasized that noticeably absent from the settlement agreement was any indication or even a suggestion that a coverage issue may exist between the defendant and its insurance company. Nor was there any reference that any such coverage issue needed to be resolved before the plaintiff would receive the settlement payment.

Thereafter, when plaintiff’s counsel wrote for the status of the settlement check, defense counsel indicated that there was some issue that the adjuster had to work out. Again, there was no reference made to any insurance coverage issues.

The opinion of the court noted facts that showed that the plaintiff’s attorney showed great patience and was more than accommodating in his repeated efforts to secure the production of the settlement check over the next several months. After several months then went by with no production of the settlement check, counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion under Pa.R.C.P. 229.1 relative to the defendant’s failure to produce the settlement check in a timely fashion after the production of the executed release.

Judge Nealon reviewed Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229.1 which governs the prompt delivery of settlement funds within 20 days of the receipt of an executed release by the defendant.

The rule otherwise provides that, if court approval of the settlement is required, the mandated 20-day time period under Rule 229.1 does not become operative until the settlement is so approved.

Nealon noted that, under Rule 229.1, if a defendant fails to timely deliver settlement funds, a plaintiff has the right to seek either of two remedies. First, a plaintiff can seek to invalidate the settlement agreement and request that the matter return to the trial list. Second, a plaintiff can seek certain sanctions against the defendant.

The court in Hill noted that, if the plaintiff opt to pursue sanctions against the defendant, Rule 229.1(e) directs the plaintiff to file an affidavit “attesting to nonpayment,” and to submit six items for the court’s review with the affidavit. Among the documents to be submitted with the affidavit are a copy of “any document evidencing the terms of the settlement agreement,” a copy of “the executed release,” a copy of “a receipt reflecting delivery of the executed release,” a certification by counsel “the applicable interest rate,” and “that the affidavit and accompanying documents have been served on the attorneys for all interested parties.” Lastly, also attached to the affidavit should be “the form of order prescribed by subdivision (h)” of Pa.R.C.P. 229.1 for execution by the court.

Nealon additionally noted that the type of sanctions allowed in this instance are spelled out under Pa.R.C.P. 229.1. More specifically, under Rule 229.1(g), if the court determines that a defendant has failed to deliver the settlement funds within 20 days and there is no material dispute as to the terms of the settlement or the terms of the release, the court “shall impose sanctions in the form of interests calculated at the rate equal to the prime rate as listed in the First Edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year for which interest is awarded, plus 1%, not compounded, running from the 21st day to the date of delivery of the settlement funds, together with reasonable attorney fees incurred in the preparation of the affidavit.”

Nealon otherwise ruled in the Hill case that the fact that the insurance company’s noncompliance with the payment requirement may be attributable to a post-settlement assertion of a potential coverage issue did not warrant the denial of the plaintiff’s request for sanctions relative to the failure of the carrier to produce the settlement check within 20 days of the production of the executed release.
Conclusion

The Hill decision written by Judge Nealon provides thorough guidance on the steps to take in securing sanctions relative to a late payment of settlement funds required by an executed release.

As evidenced by plaintiff’s counsel’s actions in the Hill case, it is advisable for the plaintiff to show some patience while repeatedly requesting, in writing, the settlement payment once the mandated 20-day time period has expired for the timely production of the check. By showing some patience and creating a written record of repeated requests for the production of the check, the plaintiff will be able to bolster their request for sanctions as opposed to the case where a plaintiff runs to the courthouse on a motion for sanctions on the 21st day after the release was received by the defense counsel.

Daniel E. Cummins is the managing partner at Cummins Law in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. Contact him at dancummins@cumminslaw.net.




Reprinted with permission from the June 18, 2026 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.

Court Gives Detailed Opinion on Sanctions Applicable to Late Payment of Settlement Funds

In the case of Hill v. Riverside Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, No. 2023-CV-3399 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 22, 2026 Nealon, J.), the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a Petition filed by a Plaintiff seeking to impose sanctions against a Defendant under Pa. R.C.P. 229.1 for failing to deliver settlement funds in a timely fashion after an executed Release was produced by the Plaintiff.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a professional liability action against a healthcare and rehab center.

In this matter, the Defendant facility owner at issue in this case eventually became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy.

During the course of this litigation, the parties agreed to participate in a settlement conference with a private mediator. Prior to the mediation, the Defendant’s attorney confirmed in writing that the parent and affiliate entities of the Defendant were insolvent and/or in bankruptcy proceedings and confirmed that the Defendant would not be able to satisfy the first $75,000.00 of any settlement but that any obligation thereafter would be covered by insurance.

After a mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement for a net payment of $175,000.00. The total amount of the party’s settlement was actually $250,000.00 but the Plaintiff agreed to waive the Defendant’s payment of its $75,000.00 deductible with a net settlement payment of $175,000.00 to be funded entirely by the Defendant's insurance carrier.

The court’s Opinion in this matter emphasized that the insurance company’s adjuster agreed to the settlement without any indication of any coverage issue between the actual Defendant and its insurance company.

Thereafter, in this death case, the court granted the Plaintiff’s Petition for Court Approval of the Settlement. 

The Plaintiff then executed the settlement agreement and sent the signed Release, the court Order approving the settlement, and other closing documents to the Defendant’s counsel and requested payment.

The court point out that noticeably absent from the settlement agreement was any indication, or even a suggestion, that a coverage issue may exist between the Defendant and its insurance company or that any such coverage issue needed to be resolved before the Plaintiff would receive the settlement payment. 

After the closing documents were produced and the settlement check was not forthcoming, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote for the status of the settlement check.  Defense counsel indicated that there was some issue that the adjuster had to work out. There was no reference made to any insurance coverage issue during that interaction.

After several months then went by with no production of the settlement check, counsel for the Plaintiff filed the Motion at issue.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229.1 which governs the prompt delivery of settlement funds within twenty (20) days of the receipt of an executed Release by the Defendant. 

The Rule otherwise provides that, if court approval of the settlement is required, then the 20 day deadline under Rule 229.1 does not begin to run until the settlement is so approved.

Judge Nealon noted that, under Rule 229.1, if the Defendant fails to timely deliver settlement funds, the Plaintiff has the right to seek one of two possible remedies. First, a Plaintiff can seek to invalidate the settlement agreement and allow the matter to return to the trial list. Second, the Plaintiff can seek sanctions against the Defendant.

The court noted that, if a plaintiff opts to pursue sanctions against a defendant, Rule 229.1(e) directs the Plaintiff to (1) file an affidavit “attesting to non-payment,” to submit copies of “any document evidencing the terms of the settlement agreement,” and/or “the executed Release,” and “a receipt reflecting delivery of the executed Release,” (2) file certifications by counsel “of the applicable interest rate,” and “that the affidavit and accompanying documents have been served on the attorneys for all interested parties,” and (3) file “the form of order prescribed by subdivision (h)” for execution by the court.

The court also noted that under Rule 229.1(g), if the court determines that the Defendant has failed to deliver the settlement funds within twenty (20) days and there is no material dispute as to the terms of the settlement or the terms of the Release, the court “shall impose sanctions in the form of interests calculated at the rate equal to the prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year for which interest is awarded, plus one (1) percent, not compounded, running from the 21st day after the production of the executed Release to the date of delivery of the settlement funds, together with reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the preparation of the affidavit.

The court otherwise ruled that the fact that the insurance company’s noncompliance with the payment requirement may be attributable to a post-settlement assertion of a potential coverage issue did not warrant the denial of the Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.  Accordingly, the court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion and awarded sanctions pursuant to Rule 229.1.

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

Source of image:  Photo by kaboom pics on www.pexels.com.

Court Rules Plaintiff Cannot Insert Into Written Settlement Agreement a Term That Was Not Contemplated in Previous Oral Settlement Agreement

In the case of Liberty Prop. Ltd. P’ship v. Kendall Heaton Assocs., Inc., No. 2947 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Feb. 27, 2026 Olson, J., Dubow, J. and Beck, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court upheld and affirmed a trial court’s enforcement of a oral settlement agreement reached by the parties in a civil litigation matter.  

In this case, the Plaintiff sought to insert an additional term in an effort to restrict the scope of the written release after the oral settlement contemplated releasing all known and unknown claims.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of construction litigation.

The Plaintiff was a developer that had contracted with several parties, including the Defendant, for construction services.  During construction, the Plaintiff discovered design defects that lead to additional costs. After attempts to resolve these issues through a Mediation failed, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and professional negligence.

During the course of the litigation, the parties reached a settlement during negotiations participated in by the Plaintiff’s in-house representatives, including an attorney, as well as outside counsel for the Plaintiff. Once that oral agreement to settlement was reached, the Defendant’s attorney confirmed the terms of that settlement via an email.  Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged the email as representing the Plaintiff's understanding of the agreement as well.

However, the Plaintiff later sought to exclude latent defects from the final written settlement agreement, which was a term that was not part of the original oral settlement agreement.

Thereafter, when the parties could not resolve their dispute over the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce the original settlement agreement. The Plaintiff filed a cross-Motion requesting the court’s enforcement of the different version of the settlement that the Plaintiff desired. 

The trial court granted the Defendant’s Motion relative to the original oral settlement agreement and denied the Plaintiff’s Motion to seeking to change that agreement under a written settlement agreement.

The Superior Court found that the trial court had properly ruled that the parties had reached an enforceable oral settlement agreement, which was not contingent upon the confirmation of the terms in a written document. The court additionally found that the agreement included a mutual release of all known and unknown claims related to the construction project in exchange for the monetary settlement payment.

The appellate court otherwise determined that the Plaintiff’s attempt to alter the agreement in the written settlement agreement to exclude latent defects was an additional term that was not part of the original settlement agreement.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority decision may click this LINK.  The dissenting Opinion by Judge Dubow can be viewed HERE.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 17, 2026).

Source of image:  Photo by Radisson US on www.unsplash.com.

Court Refuses To Enforce Settlement Where Plaintiff Asserts She Did Not Agree to the Settlement

In the case of Vangjelli v. Banks, No. 19-CV-1635 (E.D. Pa. April 6, 2023 Bratter, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion to Enforce a Settlement after finding that the Plaintiff asserted that she never agreed to the settlement and that the Plaintiff’s attorney had no express authority from the client to accept the proposed settlement.

The case arose out of issues related to the Plaintiff’s attempts to enter a Social Security Card Center and allegedly encountering trouble with a security guard. This led to the Plaintiff, at one point, being tackled by the security guard. The Plaintiff asserted various claims for personal injury as a result.

After the state court case was removed to federal court, the parties were referred to a magistrate judge for a Settlement Conference.

The magistrate judge was informed that the parties had settled the case. As such, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The Plaintiff then sent a letter to the court two (2) days later stating that she did not agree to settle and that her attorneys knew that. The Defendants filed the Motion to Enforce the Settlement at issue.

The court found a conflict of interests between the Plaintiff and her attorneys and granted the attorneys’ Motion to Withdraw. The Plaintiff did not secure new counsel.

The court construed the Plaintiff’s attorney’s letter to the court as a pro se Motion to Set Aside the Order of Dismissal.

Applying Pennsylvania law, the federal courts noted that counsel needed the express authority of the client to settle the case. The court stated that, express authority would not be found where, as here, the client had repudiated the attorney’s authority in a timely manner after the settlement.

Given that the evidence in this case showed a lack of clarity regarding the attorney’s express authority to settle the claims, the court denied the Defendant's Motion to Enforce the Settlement.

More specifically, the court saw and heard notable material gaps and inconsistencies in the testimony of the Plaintiff and her attorneys on the issues presented. The court also noted that none of the witnesses presented any documentary evidence.

It was indicated that there were two Settlement Conferences that were conducted via telephone. The record indicated that the Plaintiff was in the attorney’s office listening to the first conference but was not present for the second conference. While she was not present at the second conference, she had agreed to be available by telephone to discuss any settlement offers and to possibly authorize her attorneys to accept any offers.

The Plaintiff’s attorney testified that he conveyed the settlement offer to the Plaintiff, asked her if she wanted to settle, and that the Plaintiff had responded in the affirmative.

The attorney also testified that, when he called the Plaintiff back to tell her that the case had settled, the Plaintiff stated that she had changed her mind and no longer wanted to accept the offer.

During her testimony, the Plaintiff stated that she did not remember ever saying she wanted to accept the offer and that she had, instead, told her attorney to “go higher.”

Based upon the record before it, the court found that it could not conclude that the attorney for the Plaintiff ever had any expressed authority to accept the settlement agreement. Given that the contradictory testimonial evidence showed that there was not a meeting of the minds between the Plaintiff and her attorney as to what was said, let alone what was meant, the court denied the Petition to Enforce the Settlement.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 27, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Cottonbro Studio on www.pexels.com.

Court Finds That Email Exchange Evidencing Basic Terms of Demand, Offer, Acceptance Supports Settlement of Claims

In the case of Hatchigan v. Kaplin Stewart, No. 3040 EDA 2018 (C.P. Phila. Co. Oct. 25, 2018 Anders, J.), the court found that the Defendants were entitled to enforce a settlement agreement of the parties reached by way of emails containing the essential terms of the Defendants’ settlement offer, the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the same, and the required consideration necessary to make a contract enforceable.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff also executed a Release that referred back to the email exchanges.  Issues arose in this matter between the parties thereafter and the defense filed a motion to enforce the settlement.

In this Rule 1925 Opinion issued by the trial court, that court recommended that the Superior Court affirm its decision enforcing the party’s settlement agreement.

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

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 4, 2018)

Petition to Enforce Settlement Granted in Monroe County Case

In his recent decision in the case of Wise v. Hyundai Motor Company, No. 3777 Civil 2011 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 16, 2016 Williamson, J.), Judge David J. Williamson addressed a Motion to Enforce Settlement and, after reviewing the law of whether a valid contract of settlement had been reached between the parties, granted the same.  

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

 

Source: “Digest of Recent Decisions” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (May 30, 2017).  

Petition to Enforce Medical Malpractice Settlement Granted in Lackawanna County

In his recent decision in the medical malpractice case of Brink v. Mallik, No. 2013-CV-1314 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 9, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon reviewed the current status of the law of settlements in his assessment of a Petition to Enforce a settlement.  In the end, the court granted the Petition and found that an apparent unilateral mistake by one party as to the scope of the terms of the settlement did not support a denial of the Petition.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.

Court Addresses Ability of One Plaintiff's Estate to Intervene in a Petition for Court Approval of Another Plaintiff's Estate's Settlement in a Consolidated Matter

In a recent Opinion issued in the case of Coleman v. Bachert, No. S-890-2011 (C.P. Schuylkill Co. April 11, 2017 Goodman, J.), Judge James P. Goodman addressed an emergency motion filed by one estate of a deceased Plaintiff to challenge the settlement secured by the estate of another deceased Plaintiff in a consolidated personal injury civil litigation matter. 

This matter arose out of a motorcycle accident during which one Plaintiff’s decedent was operating the motorcycle and the other, separate Plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger on the motorcycle.   

Judge James P. Goodman
Schuylkill County

After the estate for the decedent passenger secured a settlement from the liability carrier under a single limit liability policy, the estate for the decedent driver requested permission of court to participate in the court approval proceedings relative to the wrongful death settlement in favor of the passenger decedent, asserting that the settlement of that claim could negatively affect the minor Plaintiffs associated with the estate for the decedent driver. 

The estate for the decedent passenger challenged the standing of the estate for the decedent driver to participate in the court’s proceedings for the approval of the settlement in favor of the decedent passenger.  

In part, the estate for the decedent driver asserted that the substantial proposed settlement in favor of the decedent passenger was unfair to the minors represented by the estate for the decedent driver in that it depleted the single liability limits available under the carrier’s policy.   The estate for the decedent driver requested the court to conduct an adjudication on the merits based upon an evidentiary record to review the appropriateness of the proposed settlement in favor of the decedent passenger and to consider the interests of the estate of decedent driver.  The estate of the decedent driver also requested permission for it to fully participate in the court approval of settlement proceedings relative to the settlement in favor of the plaintiff passenger.

In the alternative, the estate of the decedent driver contended that it had standing as a third party beneficiary to the liability carrier’s policy allegedly entitling that estate to participate in the hearing to approve the proposed settlement in favor of the other decedent’s estate.  

In his Opinion, Judge Goodman of the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas denied the emergency petition filed by the estate of the decedent driver.   In so ruling, the court found that the estate of the decedent driver was unable to provide the court with any legal interest or authority that the estate of the decedent driver had in the settlement between the settling Defendants (and that Defendant’s carrier), and the estate of the Plaintiff-passenger.  

The court noted that no case law or any other authority had been produced “that would prevent an insurance company from settling a case with one Plaintiff to the detriment of another Plaintiff or that would require the settlement to protect insurance funds for the non-settling Plaintiff.”  

Judge Goodman went on to state that “the case law supports that the insurance company is entitled to determine how to settle cases for policy limits, albeit, it must exercise good faith to its insured.” 

The court noted that the purpose of Rule 2206 is to ensure a fair settlement to a settling party.  Here, the estate of the decedent driver was not the settling party and was also noted to have interests that were adverse to the estate of the decedent passenger.   Accordingly, the court found that the estate of the decedent driver lacked standing under the rule to participate in the settlement approval proceedings between the settling Defendants and the estate of the Plaintiff passenger. 

The court also rejected the third party beneficiary argument presented by the estate of the decedent driver.   The court noted that there was no language in the insurance policy covering the Defendant that identified any injured party at a third party beneficiary to that contract.   As such, the court found that there was no support for the assertion that the estate of the decedent driver was a third party beneficiary of the liability policy.  

Judge Goodman otherwise also noted that “it is well-settled that under Pennsylvania law, an injured party has no right to directly sue the insurer of an alleged tortfeasor unless a provision of the policy or a statute creates such a right.”   [citations omitted].  

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

Enforceability of Written Waiver of Right to Seek Pa.R.C.P. 229.1 Damages Addressed

In the recent case of Markiewicz v. CVS Care Mart, Corp., No. 2014-CV-4043 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 10, 2017 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrance R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 229.1 relative to a Defendant’s alleged failure to pay settlement funds within the twenty (20) day period required by that Rule.  

According to the Opinion, after the Defendant in this personal injury action failed to pay the settlement funds to the Plaintiff within twenty (20) days of the Defendant’s receipt of the executed Release, the Plaintiff filed a motion under Pa. R.C.P. 229.1 seeking to recover interest and counsel fees from the Defendant.  

The defense asserted that the Plaintiff had agreed in writing to waive the right to seek such additional damages or interest under Rule 229.1.   

However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant subsequently breached the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement by deducting the full amount of the Medicare lien from the Plaintiff’s gross settlement and forwarding those funds directly to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of her ability to negotiate the Medicare lien down.  

Judge Nealon confirmed that the Plaintiff expressly waived any claim for additional damages or interests under Pa. R.C.P. 229.1 in the settlement agreement that the Plaintiff executed.   Accordingly, the court ruled that, based upon that clear and unambiguous language, the Plaintiff was unable to recover any such damages available under that rule.  

However, Judge Nealon went on to rule that, if the Defendant’s alleged actions violated the terms of the settlement agreement relative to the Medicare lien, the Plaintiff’s proper remedy was to file a Petition to Enforce the Settlement Agreement to recover any consequential damages for the Defendant’s alleged breach of that agreement. 

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 229.1 was denied without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to file a Petition to Enforce the Settlement Agreement.  

Anyone wishing to review Judge Nealon's decision in this case may click this LINK.

Plaintiff Secures Costs and Attorney's Fees On Petition to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Medicare Lien Issues)

In a continuing trend across the Commonwealth, Judge Kimberly McFadden of the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas granted a Plaintiff's Petition to Enforce a Settlement in the case of Williams v. Easton Coach Co., No. C-0048-CV-2015-10186.

The court awarded the Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees after Plaintiff was forced to file a Petition to Enforce a Settlement that was held up by the Defendant's refusal to accept the Plaintiff's proposed Final Settlement Detail Document designed to provide notice to Medicare of the Settlement.

In a detailed Order without Opinion, the Court ordered that the settlement go forth and awarded the Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees caused by the need to file the Petition.

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.

Anyone wishing to view the Court's Order along with the Plaintiff's Petition, may click this LINK.