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
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
New case law on Pennsylvania Underinsurance Litigation
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided the case of Nationwide v. Schneider where the Court affirms the en banc decision of the Superior Court and holds that you are not required to fully exhaust the first level of UIM before you pursue the second level UIM. This is a big win for plaintiffs.
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."
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds That UIM "Other Insurance" Clause Is Void
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision recently in Generette v. Donegal. The Court, in a majority decision by Justice Baer (joined by C.J. Castille, Todd and McCaffery), reverses the Superior Court 5-4 en banc decision.
The Court holds that the Superior Court erred in concluding that the MVFRL provision relating to stacking and waiver applied to Generette, who was not an "insured" as defined by the MVFRL. Additionally, it holds that a portion of the "Other Insurance" clause in the Generette policy with Donegal is non-enforceable because it conflicts with the public policy of the MVFRL to provide "excess" rather than "gap" underinsured motorist coverage. Justice Saylor filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion and Justice Eakin a separate dissenting opinion.
This is a very confusing issue to the lay person and the written opinion certainly bears that out. Just understand that it is a win for the good guys. It has made a direct, positive result in one of the underinsurance claims being litigated here at Carroll & Carroll, P.C.
Thanks, as always, to Scott Cooper, Esquire for providing this information.
District Court Holds that "Listed driver" Is Entitled to UIM Coverage
Robert Alben (Alben) was injured in an accident which occurred in Ohio. He was driving his employer's vehicle and then sought UIM coverage on his girlfriend's personal policy with Horace Mann because he was a "listed driver".
The Court initially holds that under the terms of the policy the "listed driver" is not automatically considered an "insured" or "covered person" to allow UIM coverage. However, then the court addresses the reasonable expectations of the insured and the recent statement of the Third Circuit standard in West v. Lincoln Ben. Life. Ins., 509 F.3d 160 (3d. cir. 2007) which offered a "synthesized standard [as] the truest statement of of Pennsylvania law" regarding the doctrine of reasonable expectations.
Applying the standard the Court notes that the insurer must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the insured did not have a reasonable expectation of coverage. Based upon this standard and the facts of the case, particularly the fact that everyone involved testified that they all thought that by adding Alben to the policy as a listed driver he would be fully covered, the Court finds that the "listed driver" who was injured in his employers vehicle at the time of the accident is entitled to UIM coverage on his girlfriend's personal policy.
Thanks to Scott Cooper, Esquire for this information.
Court Holds No Underinsured Motorist Coverage Under Antique/Classic Car Policy Unless Actually Occupying It
Benner's Estate argued that under Quinney v. American Modern Home Insurance Company, 145 F.Supp.2d 603 (M.D. Pa. 2001) she was entitled to coverage as a family member/insured and did not need to be occupying the vehicle to qualify for coverage. However, the District Court observes that the policy language in Quinney is not the same as the language in Benner's policy. In Quinney the policy language stated that the coverage was provided to an insured/family member without the actual occupying requirement but in the Benner policy the family member/insured had to be occupying. Thus, since she was not occupying the antique/classic vehicle at the time of the accident, the Estate could not recover.
Court Holds Police Officer Injured Outside His Cruiser Is A Protected Person
On July 28, 2008, Judge Joyner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Granted the Insured's Motion for Summary Judgment in St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Rhein. Judge Joyner holds that Rhein was occupying his police vehicle at the time he was injured while conducting a routine traffic stop.
In Rhein, the officer was injured in the course and scope of his employment. He pulled over a speeding vehicle, stopped behind the car with his emergency lights on and exited his cruiser to conduct the stop. At some point during the exchange of information the other driver's car began to roll backward and Rhein's hand became wedged inside the car door causing his injuries. He settled the third party case with the other drivers insurance company and then sought underinsured motorist coverage form the Township insurer which denied coverage arguing that Rhein was not a "protected person" under the policy because he was not "occupying" the cruiser at the time of the accident.
Applying the four (4) part "occupancy" test from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Contrisciane, 473 A.3d 1005 (Pa. 1984) the Court holds that Rhein was "occupying" the cruiser at the time of the accident. One of the main issue to the four part test was whether Rhein was "vehicle oriented". The court relies upon Property and Casualty Insurance Co. of Hartford v. Caperilla, 2004 WL 1551739 (E.D. Pa. July 9, 2004) where another officer was injure din a similar manner. Thus, he is a covered and protected person and entitled to the underinsured motorist coverage.
Thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper for this information.
Insured Not Allowed UM/UIM Benefits for Accidents Caused By Co-employee
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