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
$2 Million Verdict for Foreman Injured by Pipe Plug
The Legal Intelligencer (12/4, Needles) reported, "A federal jury entered the $2 million verdict against Vanderlans and Sons Inc., the manufacturer of the test plugs -- inflatable rubber stoppers that are placed in both ends of a pipe and inflated in order to test the pipe's airtightness -- before Judge J. Curtis Joyner in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 25" in favor of a "construction foreman who completely lost use of his right arm after pressure buildup caused a 'test plug' to shoot from the end of a pipe he was installing and pierce his hand." The defendant's attorney "said he felt the case should never have made it to a jury once it was determined that his client's product was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law" and that "he will most likely file post-trial motions."Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
Skiier Injured Exiting Chairlift Did Not Assume Risk
From JudicialView.com:
Blocked Departure Area Not an Inherent Risk of Skiing
As Patricia Clarke was preparing to disembark from a chairlift at the Peek ‘N Peak ski resort in February of 2003, she noticed that there were children standing around the unloading ramp. Afraid of running into and hurting one of the children, Clarke straddled one of them, fell and injured her leg.
Clarke brought a personal injury suit against the ski resort, alleging that the operator of the chairlift should have stopped the lift and cleared the exit area. Peek ‘N Peak moved for summary judgment, arguing that skiing is a dangerous activity and Clarke assumed the risk. A magistrate judge recomended that Peek ‘N Peak’s motion be denied.
In its opinion, the District Court analyzed the assumption of the risk doctrine under New York law, determining that the ski resort’s liability hinged on whether it created a dangerous condition over and above that inherent in the sport of skiing. While exiting a chair lift did contain some inherent risks, colliding with another skier was not an inherent risk of exiting the chairlift. By allowing children to gather in the exit area, Peek ‘N Peak created a unique circumstance that made the act of skiing even more risky.
Additionally, the chairlift operator’s failure to slow or stop the lift and clear a path was in violation of both Peek ‘N Peak’s policy and New York state regulations. As such, there was a question of fact as to whether the ski lift operator had been properly trained to run the chairlift.
The District Court denied the motion for summary judgment based upon assumption of risk.
Clarke v. Peek 'N Peak Recreation, Inc., ---F.Supp.2d ---, 2008 WL 732794 (W.D.N.Y., Mar. 18, 2008)
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
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.
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.
Federal Verdict Against GM in Rollover Lawsuit
A jury found General Motors negligent in a rollover crash that killed a 14-year-old boy, awarding what may be a record amount to the parents who brought a lawsuit in federal court against the auto maker. The trial lasted two weeks.Garland Reynolds and his wife, Bonnie, were awarded $3.5 million in connection with the 2002 rollover accident that claimed the life of their son, Matthew. The Reynolds sued GM in 2006, alleging that the design of the 1995 Chevrolet Blazer created stability issues that contributed to the fatal wreck. The jury awarded no punitive damages.
A jury of five men and three women deliberated for nearly three days in U.S. District Court in Gainesville, GA before finding GM at fault.
The jury said to General Motors that the Blazer is unsafe and it should not have been designed without proper stability, attorney for the plaintiff said.
On June 3, 2002, Bonnie Reynolds was driving a 1995 Chevy Blazer on the Interstate with her son in the front seat when the Blazer was struck by a drunk driver who lost control of his Pontiac Sunbird.
The Blazer flipped several times and Matthew Reynolds was ejected. He died the following day in an area hospital.
The driver who struck the Reynolds' car was later convicted of first-degree vehicular homicide and is serving a lengthy prison sentence.
Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial of other rollover accidents involving the Blazer. The plaintiffs contended that the make and model was built with too high a center of gravity for the wheel base, and that the "track," or distance between the wheels, should have been widened to prevent stability problems.
Blazers manufactured from 1995 through 2002 have similar design flaws. The Blazer was subsequently phased out in favor of the TrailBlazer, which has a wider wheelbase.
Evidence presented at trial called for a recall.
General Motors maintains that the vehicle is safe.
Company spokeswoman Geri Lama said GM was disappointed in the jury's verdict. They contend that the rollover accident is the sole fault of the drunk driver who struck the Blazer. GM is considering its options of an appeal.There was never an offer to settle, according to Plaintiffs attorneys.
GM was represented by a team of King & Spalding attorneys led by partner W. Ray Persons,
The case, in the Northern District of Georgia, is Garland Reynolds Jr. et al., v. General Motors Corp., No. 2:04-CV-106.
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.
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