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

    1/16/2009
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Court Allows Claims For Emotional Distress After Alleged Breach Of Contract To Continue

    In Amitia v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3:08cv335 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2009), Judge Munley from the Middle District of Pennsylvania Denied Nationwide's Motions to Dismiss Claims that allege violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and Breach of Contract in a case arising out of an underinsured motorist claim after a July 3, 2002 car accident. 
     
    First, the Nationwide Motion for Dismiss the UTPCPL count is denied because Amitia alleged more than a mere breach of a contractual duty by alleging Nationwide failed to evaluate the claim promptly, objectively and fairly.  Also, Amitia alleges Nationwide conducted an unfair, unreasonable and dilatory investigation.  Therefore, he finds that their have been allegations more than the simple alleged refusal to pay which could warrant recovery under the UTPCPL.
     
    Second, he denies a Motion to Dismiss a claim for breach of contract.  Nationwide argued that since the underinsured motorist claim was paid that it could not be responsible for breach of contract.  The opinion notes that the damages sought in the case because of the breach are different than damages for the underinsured motorist benefits.  The claims allege emotional distress because of Nationwide's breach.  Thus, this is not the same as damages for the breach of not paying UIM benefits and the Court finds that "it would be inappropriate at this time to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action as it seeks recovery for emotional distress, which may be recoverable."
     
    Thanks to Scott B. Cooper, Esquire for this information.

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

4/7/2009
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Pa. Superior Court Allows UIM And Bad Faith To Proceed At Same Time

On April 6, 2009, in the case of Gunn v. The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, a 3 judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, affirms the trial court decision by Judge Wettick in Allegheny County to allow an underinsured motorist claim (UIM) and bad faith claim under Section 8371 to proceed simulatenously. 

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. 

3/9/2009
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

District Court Holds That Estate Underinsured Motorist Claim Barred Due To State Of Maine Law

On March 4, 2009 Judge O'Neill in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Allstate Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment in Willett v. Allstate Insurance Company where the Estate of an insured was arguing that a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits was allowed even though the law in the state of Maine, where the decedent's accident occurred, has a statutory cap on the amount of monies that can be recovered for non-economic damages in a wrongful death action. 
 
David Willett (Willett) was killed in a car accident which occurred in Maine.  At the time of the accident he resided in Pennsylvania with his mother and was insured under her Allstate policy which provided for $100,000 in UIM benefits unstacked.  The third party had a total amount of coverage (liability and umbrella) of $1,250,000.  Pursuant to the laws in Maine the Estate received only the statutory cap of $400,000 for non-economic damages and the total award, with the additional expenses, was $454,249. 

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
 
He holds that the statutory cap under the laws in Maine make the estate NOT "legally entitled" to recover UIM benefits and thus, no UIM monies are to be paid. 

Thanks again to Attorney Scott Cooper for providing this information.

1/16/2009
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

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.


12/17/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

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.


11/23/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

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.


8/28/2008
James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
Comments (0)

Court Holds No Underinsured Motorist Coverage Under Antique/Classic Car Policy Unless Actually Occupying It

On August 26, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Sanchez, J.) granted Foremost Insurance Group's Motion for Summary Judgment in Benner v. Foremost Insurance Group.  This case involved the tragic death of a girl, Benner, who was killed while occupying her friend's vehicle.  An underinsured motorist claim ("UIM") was pursued on a family member's Antique and Classic Auto insurance Policy and the insurance company denied the claim because it said that under the terms of the policy Benner had to be "actually occupying" the antique/classic vehicle at the time of the accident to qualify for UIM coverage. 

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. 
 
Thanks to Scott B. Cooper, Esquire who provided this information.