Practice Areas
Blog 
Personal Injury
- New York state man recovers $200K for fingers lost to lawn mower
- Eight Powerful Reasons to Hire a Local Attorney
- Court Allows Claims For Emotional Distress After Alleged Breach Of Contract To Continue
- Wal-Mart Limits Subrogation Rights Against Workers
- Pennsylvania Worker recovers for fall from ladder bought at Home Depot
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
- NYC to pay $2.75M for softball accident in school gym class
- New case law on slilp and fall on icey sidewalks owned by a City
- Worker who lost leg in construction accident receives $13M
- Boy blinded in ATV rollover gets $6M settlement
- ELMIRA ATTORNEY CONTINUES TO INVESTIGATE OUTBREAK OF LEGIONNAIRES’ DISEASE AT THE FLANNERY TOWERS
Workers' Compensation
- New York Times article on biased "Independant" Medical Examiners
- No Work Jobs
- Prison Guard receives settlement in MRSA case
- New blog post at the Pa Injury Law blog about the effect Bush had on OSHA
- New post on the Pa Work Injury Law Blog about what to do when you're laid off
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
- Pennsylvania Car Accident Plaintiff's award of $400,000 Upheld On Appeal
- An unsafe intersection in Athens Township?
- Pennsylvania Superior Court Case Quashing Underinsured Motorist Carrier Appeal
- Pa. Superior Court Allows UIM And Bad Faith To Proceed At Same Time
- People injured in Springfield Township, Bradford County automobile crash
General
- Insurance company denials of benefits in Pennsylvania and New York
- CALL YOUR MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND URGE SUPPORT FOR THE ARBITRATION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2009
- Another ATV Death
- Bradford County, Pennsylvania has a new website
- No conflict of interest between Bradford County, Pennsylvania's new Judge and new District Attorney, despite them cousins
Legal News
Judge campaign candidates speak at dinner in Towanda
Judge Beirne unopposed in local race
Attorney General Tom Corbett to visit Bradford County
Beirne will run for full term as judge
Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers
Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance
Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding
Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge
Legal Library
Personal Injury
- Questions for Your Doctor In Personal Injury Cases
- Traumatic Brain Injury: By The [Staggering] Numbers
- What is an Independent Medical Examination?
- Common Questions About the Legal Process
- The Wrongful Death Of A Child - Part Two
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
- Cracked, Broken or Irregular Sidewalks Causing a Fall
- Dog Bites
- If You Have Been Bitten or Attacked by a Dog, Then You Need to Read This Article
- New Pennsylvania Superior Court Case on Dog Attack
- Lead Poisoning Threatens Pregnant Women
Workers' Compensation
- New York Times article on Independent Medical Exams
- Response to Time Magazine Article: "Doctor's View: Can Health Coverage Cause Pain?"
- Specific Loss Benefits
- Reimbursement for Travel Expenes in Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Cases
- Flow of Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Claim Documents Prior To Litigation
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
- Reducing The Impact of A Whiplash Injury
- Car Accident Injuries: Neck Pain
- Multi-Truck Accident in Susquehanna County Results in Hospitalization
- Repeat Offender Facing DUI Charges After Accident Lands Passenger in Hospital
- Driver Strikes Mother and Daughter in School Crossing Zone
Newsletters
General
Personal Injury
Court Allows Claims For Emotional Distress After Alleged Breach Of Contract To Continue
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
Pennsylvania Superior Court Case Quashing Underinsured Motorist Carrier Appeal
Here is the now published opinion in Gunn v. The Automobile insurance Company of Hartford where a 3 judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, quashed the appeal of an underinsured motorist carrier in a case where the trial court decision by Judge Wettick in Allegheny County allowed an underinsured motorist claim (UIM) and bad faith claim under Section 8371 to proceed simultaneously.The decision of the majority, written by Judge Allen and joined by P.J. Ford-Elliott, finds that the trial court decision was not an appealable order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313. Judge Lally-Green dissents and would find that the decision of the trial court was appealable and would reverse the trial court decision as abusing its discretion.
Of note, the case was originally a memorandum decision and no motion to publish was filed. The court docket indicates that the decision to withdraw the opinion and publish was made "after recommendation" and was thus published sua sponte.
Thanks again to Attorney Scott Cooper for this information.
Pa. Superior Court Allows UIM And Bad Faith To Proceed At Same Time
The decision of the majority (Judges Ford-Elliott and Allen) determines that under the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court decision was not an appealable order under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313. Judge Lally-Green dissents and would find that the decision of the trial court was appealable and would reverse the trial court decision as abusing its discrtetion. Frank Murphy wrote the Amicus for PaAJ and Gunn is represented by PaAJ members Cindy Danel and Ken Nolan.
Thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper for this information.
District Court Holds That Estate Underinsured Motorist Claim Barred Due To State Of Maine Law
The Estate pursued the UIM claim in Pennsylvania against Allstate and was providing a full credit for the full $1,250,000. The District Court decision by Judge O'Neill holds that Allstate is not required to make any UIM payment because the application of the statutory cap in Maine precluded the UIM claim. He finds that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Cipolla v. Shaposka, 267 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1970) is controlling and on point. He distinguishes the Willett situation from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 788 A.2d 955 (Pa. 2001) because he writes that the Kmonk case (1) involved Pennsylvania accidents and not one from another state, (2) no party argued another state law was applicable, (3) there was no choice of law issue in Kmonk and (4) the Court in Kmonk did not cite, discuss or overrule Cipolla.
Thanks again to Attorney Scott Cooper for providing this information.
Pa. Super. Rules Insured Bears Burden To Show Rejection Form Is Forgery
Attached is a copy of the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision today in Toth v. Donegal Companies. This case deals with a rejection of underinsured motorist coverage where the rejection form was signed by the spouse of the first named insured. The trial court held that the form must be signed by the first named insured and, since it was not, the form was void. The Superior Court relies upon Jackson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 441 F.Supp.2d 728 (E.D. Pa. 2006) where the District Court found that the insured failed to prove her signature on a rejection form was a forgery.
The trial court is reversed and the Superior Court holds "where a signature appears on the UIM rejection form purporting to be that of the first named insured, the insurer has complied with the statute resulting in a facially valid rejection form.
The burden would then shift to the insured to prove that his or her signature was affixed to the rejection form without knowledge or authorization." Toth now needs to show that her signature was a forgery, placed there without her knowledge or consent, and that she did not willingly waive UIM coverage or the rejection form remains valid.
Road Risks Rise as More Drivers Drop Insurance
From The Wall Street Journal:Higher Premiums, Joblessness Contribute to Alarming Trend; What to Do When You're Hit
"More drivers are letting their car insurance lapse because of the sour economy, putting themselves and others at risk. Several hundred thousand drivers dropped their insurance in the past year as the jobless rate climbed, estimates a study to be released next month by the Insurance Research Council, an industry-funded group. Online agency Insurance.com says it also is seeing evidence recently of more uninsured motorists. It says that as many as 40% of callers following up on online applications had let their previous policies lapse, up from less than 10% a couple years ago."
"The trend is bad news for everybody on the road. If you're hit by an uninsured motorist, you may have to sue to recover costs, and many uninsured motorists have few assets. You can protect yourself by carrying uninsured-motorist coverage -- almost half of states require the added coverage -- but this may boost your premium."
This article points out the importance of buying the best coverage for your vehicle that's possible. This means that you should purchase underinsurance and uninsurance. Because so many drivers have no or limited insurance, buying extra coverage only protects you and your family.
To learn more about Underinsurance and Uninsurance, click here and here and here.
Superior Court Holds Cab Driver Not Entitled To Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Attached is the link to the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision on October 10, 2008 in Nationwide Assurance Company v. Easley where the Superior Court affirms the trial court decision in Allegheny County which upheld 2 exclusions as they applied to preclude a cab driver from obtaining underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) on his personal policy for an accident which occured while he was driving a cab.
Calvin Easley(Easley) was injured while operating a Yellow Cab Taxi in Pittsubrgh. He paid a lease fee for use of the taxi during a 24 hour period and had no choice over the taxi he received. He did not have a paying customer in the cab when he was injured by a third party in a car accident. He was driving home and was intending to return the cab the next day.
After settling the third party claim and then, since the taxi company did not provide UIM coverage, he made a claim on his personal policy for UIM coverage but was denied based upon 2 exclusions which denied him coverage for accidents occuring in a vehicle avaliable for his "regular use" and also for vehicles "used to carry persons or property for a charge".
The Superior Court decision by Judge Popovich finds that the fact Easley did not have a passenger with him at the time the accident occured does not render the "use for hire" exclusion invalid nor did the fact that he operated different taxis render the "regular used" vehicle exclusion invalid. The Superior Court affirms the trial court decision and upholds both exclusions.
Thanks to Scott Cooper, Esquire for providing this information.
Defendants agree to pay $2.9M for driver struck in intersection
Pennsylvania - Motor Vehicle Collision
A van driver who sustained multiple fractures in an intersection crash with a Mack truck received $2.9 million in court-appointed mediation. Joel Aponte, then 22, was struck by Francis Hacker who ran a red light. Aponte fractured his pelvis, femurs and C6 vertebra. He also suffered significant internal injuries that required stomach and bowel reconstruction. The settlement consisted of $1.9 million of Hacker's $2 million insurance policy and the $1 million limits of an underinsured motorist policy applicable to the van Aponte was driving.
To purchase the full report on this case, go to VerdictSearch.com.
New Pennsylvania Federal Court Section 1734 Sign Down Case Nullifies Alleged Sign down Of UIM Coverage
On July 10, 2008, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Judge Vanaskie) granted the insureds motion for summary judgment and set aside an alleged sign down of underinsured motorist coverage in The Brethren Mutual Ins. Co. v. Triboski-Gray. The insurance company argued that a sign down from $250,000 in bodily injury (BI) coverage to $35,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage was valid because the insured signed the bottom of a 2 page application for coverage. Relying upon the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Lewis v. Erie, 793 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002) and Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in Motorists v. Emig, 664 A.2d 559 (Pa. Super. 1995), the Court holds that the insureds "signature on an application completed by the insurance company's agent does not constitute a written request for UM/UIM coverage limits below the coverage requested for bodily injury."
In this case, there was none of the insureds initials next to the UM/UIM coverage designations on the application as in some other cases. Thus, there was no "written request" according to the court. The Court enforced the insurance policy and nullifies the lower UM/UIM coverage limits, thus deeming the UM/UIM coverage equal to the bodily injury limits. The coverage for UM/UIM is now $250,000.
New Case Law on stacking of underinsurance by employees in company owned vehicles
In State Auto Property & Casualty insurance Co. v. Pro Design, P.C. today the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Munley, J.) held that a corporation can avail itself of stacked underinsured motorist benefits even if it waived stacking on a single vehicle policy where it subsequently added two vehicles to the policy and never signed a new waiver of stacking for those additional vehicles.
The court finds that Sackett II does not apply to a single car policy which is what the Supreme Court says in footnote 5 of Sackett II. The Court also notes that under Sackett II "the degree that coverage under an after-acquired vehicle provision continues in effect throughout the existing period. Once that policy period comes to an end, the insurer must obtain a new waiver if an additional vehicle was added during that period." The fact is that when the single vehicle policy became a multiple vehicle policy the insured was not supposed to be given a chance to "purchase" intra-policy stacking and it did not get a chance to do so. Thus, the 3 car policy provides stacking.
New Federal case law on what is required in rejecting UIM insurance coverage
On Friday June 6, 2008 the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found in favor of the insurance company in a sign down case in The Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Poslusney. In this case the insureds executed a sign down in 1990 from 100K in BI splits limits to 50K in UM and UIM split coverage nonstacked. The forms were with AEtna. Then, in 1994 they increased their liability to $305K with The Standard Fire Insurance Company and no new sign downs were executed. They were injured in a car accident in 2004 and made bodily injury claims.
First, the District Court holds that their was no need for a new sign down in 1994 because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion on Blood v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 934 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2007) applies to an increase of liability as opposed to a decrease of liability as in Blood, as long as their is a sign down executed. Second, the court holds that the difference in the 2 companies AEtna v. Standard does not require a new sign down because they are under the same set of inter-related companies of AEtna, Travelers and Standard. The court also finds that some other changes do not make a new policy in 1994 but importantly does not discuss the effect of the legislature enactment of 40 P.S. Section 991.2001. In Frankiewicz v. Motorists in 2006 the trial court in Erie County held that similar changes to a policy created a new policy and required a new rejection of stacking form.
New case law on obtaining UIM from your employer for a work related auto accident.
On June 4, in Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision that it is a violation of public policy to exclude anyone eligible for workers' compensation benefits from also recovering underinsured motorist benefits. In Heller, the injured victim was in the course and scope of his employment in his employer’s vehicle when a car accident occurred. The injured worker recovered the third party coverage and then sought UIM coverage on his employer’s policy. There was an exclusion in the UIM provision of the employer's policy and instead of just ruling that the exclusion was not valid under the MVFRL, the trial court found that the exclusion violated public policy. The Commonwealth Court in this 2-1 decision holds that the exclusion does not violate public policy and reversesNew Case Law on stacking of uninsurance and underinsurance by Pennsylvania employees
On May 14, 2008 the trial court in Lackawanna County granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of Donegal Mutual Insurance Company in Reeser v. Donegal. In Reeser the insureds injured were employees of the employer who insured the vehicle. There was a 4 car policy that had only 35K UM and UIM coverage and no stacking. However, the company could not produce the forms requesting lower limits or rejecting stacking so the court held as a matter of law that there was 500K in UM and UIM coverage with stacking.
However, the trial court also held that since there was no policy language entitling a class two insured to stack underinsured motorist coverage, that only a class one insured could stack. In this case, only the individual employer and those family members who resided with the employer could stack as class one insureds but the employees who were injured as occupants of the insured vehicles could not. The insureds attempted to argue that since Section 1738 does not distinguish between classes that there was no longer a distinction between class one and class two insureds. The trial court relies upon Section 1702 of the MVFRL and the line of cases from the 1980s starting with Utica Mutual to hold that there is still a class one and class two distinction, absent a policy provision.
This is a very technical case invovling very specific facts and insurance policy language, or lack thereof. However, it is ultimate proof that an attorney must look at every angle in determining the amounts of insurance coverage, etc. Leave no stone unturned.
Quick Contact
FAQs
Personal Injury
- How long is all this going to take?
- The insurance company offered me a settlement almost immediately after my serious accident. Should I accept it?
- The insurance company says that I don’t need a lawyer to settle this. What do you think?
- What is my case worth?
- What factors determine who is at fault in a car accident?
Workers' Compensation
- What happens if I return to a modified duty job and then I am laid off?
- If I am unable to return to the type of work I did before I was injured, what happens?
- If I am injured on the job can I choose the doctor who treats me?
- Should an injured worker apply for unemployment benefits?
- What medical benefits does the Act provide to a worker after they have sustained an on-the-job injury?
General
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog