Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases

Practice Areas


Blog

Personal Injury

view all

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

view all

Workers' Compensation

view all

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

view all

General

view all

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

Bias in Peer Review

Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers

Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance

Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding

Armenia bans ATVs

Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge

View All

Legal Library

Personal Injury

More Info

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

More Info

Workers' Compensation

More Info

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

More Info

Newsletters

More Info

General

More Info

Blog Category:

Personal Injury

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    11/7/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Lackawanna County Court Denies POs To Separate Tort and UIM Claims in Post-Koken Case


    On October 24, 2008 the trial court (Thomson, J.) in Lackawanna County denied Preliminary Objections in a post-Koken case which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County arising out of a car accident involving an underinsured vehicle/driver. 

    In Moyer v. Harrigan/Erie Ins, the lawsuit was filed against the other driver in tort and the victim's insurance company in contract for UIM benefits.  The trial court denied the Preliminary Objections which sought to separate the claims and writes, "the rights and responsibilities of the parties will be effectively and efficiently fixed by a single action."  Further, the court notes "to sever the actions would force two trial on the same issues and with the same proofs.  This would be a significant waste of judicial resources for the court and would cause significant delay and expense to the parties."