• Federal Court Weighs in on Ride Share UM/UIM Coverage
• Another Trial Win for Paul Gambone
• More Caselaw on Who is a “Resident Relative”
• Supreme Court Upholds the Regular Use Exclusion
• Eastern District Weighs In On Service
• Congratulations to Paul Gambone
• Third Circuit Confirms There Is No Requirement For A New Sec. 1734 Form Requesting Lower UM/UIM Limits When A Vehicle Is Added To An Existing Policy
• Welcome back Amy Gampico!
• Trial Victory for Paul Gambone
• Expert Testimony Not Required In Cases Where Causation Is “Obvious”
• Trial Victory for Sean Buggy
• Household Exclusion Enforceable When Insured Rejects Coverage on Own Vehicle
• Superior Court Says “Resident” Did Not Require Physical Presence
• Eastern District Interprets Conflicting Limited Tort Issues
• Pennsylvania Superior Court Invalidates the Regular Use Exclusion
• Welcome Mr. Appelbaum to our firm!
• Forum Selection Clause Held To Be Unambiguous
• UIM Rejection Forms Held to be Valid
• Superior Court Follows Eichelman and not Gallagher
• Long Anticipated Donovan Decision
• Third Circuit Applies Gallagher and Affirms Household Exclusion to be Invalid
• Summary Judgment Granted in Premises Liability Case
• Regular Use Exclusion Upheld Yet Again
• Third Circuit Reaffirms Section 1734 Writing Requirements
• Pennsylvania Superior Court Enforces Household Exclusion Despite Gallagher
• Sudden Emergency Doctrine Called Into Question
• Transient Daughter Held To Be Resident Of Father’s Home
• The Regular Use Exclusion Survives But Remains Under Fire
• Western District Upholds Gallagher With Two Different Carriers
• Courts Differ on Similar Claims for Punitive Damages
• Another Recent Gallagher Decision
• Lehigh County Court limits Gallagher v. GEICO to its facts
• “Wave-on Liability” Allowed to Proceed to Jury
• A New Trial is the Remedy for a Verdict Against the Weight of the Evidence
• Courts Enter Inconsistent Decisions on the Regular Use Exclusion
• Pennsylvania Superior Court Upholds Jury Verdict For Economic Losses Only
• Regular Use Exclusion Survives Gallagher Challenge
• Congratulations to Christin L. Kochel!
• Common Pleas Judge Holds that Removing Vehicle does not Constitute Purchase of Insurance
• Waiver of a Stacking Form must be Executed by First Named Insured – County Opinion
• Another Trial Victory for Paul Gambone
• Trial Victory for Paul Gambone
• Trial Victory for Christin Kochel
• Claims for Future Medical Expenses Do Not Have To Be Reduced Pursuant to Act VI
• Regular Use Exclusion Under Fire
• Supreme Court Upholds The Unlisted Driver Exclusion
• Supreme Court Holds That a New Waiver of Stacking is Needed When Increasing UM/UIM Limits
• Regular Use Exclusion Applicable to Rental Vehicle Provided by Employer
• Trial Victory for Christin Kochel
• Three New Gallagher Decisions
• Yet Another Trial Win for Sean Buggy
• UIM Carrier Not Entitled to Credit for Certain Amounts Paid In Excess of Tortfeasor’s Liability Limits
• Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations Severely Limited
• Congratulations to Christin L. Kochel!
• Another Trial Victory for Sean Buggy
• Eastern District Holds Supreme Court Elimination of the Family Car Exclusion Applies Retroactively
• Failure To Establish Good Faith Effort To Serve Results In Dismissals
• Trial Victory for Sean Buggy
• Untimely Removal Causes Remand to State Court
• Defense Verdict for Paul Gambone
• New PA Rule to Address John/Jane Doe Defendants
• Commonwealth Court Upholds Sudden Emergency Rule and Excludes Evidence of Post Accident Alterations
• The Supreme Court Ends The Family Car Exclusion
• “Snap Removals” Upheld By The Third Circuit
• PA Supreme Court Addresses Discovery Rule
• Inter-Policy Stacking Upheld And Stacking Waiver Held To Be Valid
• UM Rejection Form with Additional Language Upheld in Commercial Policy
• Texting While Driving and Punitive Damages
• Court Finds Claims-Adjuster Fraudulently Joined To Defeat Diversity Jurisdiction
• UM/UIM Rejection Found to be Valid on Commercial Policy
• Defense Verdict for Paul S. Gambone
• Western District Declines Jurisdiction of Stacking Waiver Issue
• Superior Court Decides Multiple Issues In One Decision
• Superior Court Strictly Construes Arbitration Agreement
• Court Found Insurer Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Front Seat Passenger who Grabs the Steering Wheel
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review the Validity of Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusions in Automobile Policies
• Eastern District Holds That New Sec. 1738 Stacking Forms are Required When Increased UM/UIM Limits are Requested (Mem.Op.)
• Commercial Policy Stacking Addressed Again By The Superior Court
• Regular Use Exclusion Upheld Again by Eastern District Court
• UM/UIM Stacked Insurance Waiver Form Must Be Signed By Insured, But Can Be Dated By Someone Else
• Superior Court Upholds Unlisted Resident Driver Exclusion
• Defense Verdict for Christin Kochel
• Supreme Court Allows Blood Alcohol Evidence Without Independent Corroborating Evidence Of Intoxication
• Supreme Court to Look Again at GEICO v. Ayers
• When is Evidence of Intoxication Admissible in Auto Cases?
• Defense Verdict for Paul Gambone
• Pennsylvania Superior Court recognizes same-sex common-law marriage
• Third Party Binding Arbitration Award May Not Collaterally Estop a Claimant From Pursuing a Subsequent UIM Claim
• UIM Sign Down Form Still Valid With Old Policy Number
• Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony Precluded for Lack of Qualification
• Trial Court Dismissal Affirmed Under Dead Man’s Act
• Congratulations Sean P. Buggy!
• Denial of Stacked Benefits Under Sec. 1738 Not Bad Faith
• Superior Court Allows Minor Deviations on Sec. 1731 UIM Rejection Form – Petty v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co.
• Berks County Defense Verdict for David R. Friedman
• Order Compelling Privileged Information is Immediately Appealable
• Partial Summary Judgment Awarded to Plaintiffs by Establishing Negligence Per Se of the Defendant
• Monroe County Jury Verdict for Chris Parrish
• Western District Court Denies Coverage for Workmanship Claim
• Western District of Pennsylvania Addresses Inter-Policy Stacking Issues
• Western District denies UIM carrier’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
• Defense Verdict for Chris Parrish
• UM/UIM Rejections Addressed in Two Recent WDPA Cases
• When Should a Settling Defendant be on the Verdict Slip at Trial?
• Middle District Interprets Sackett Trilogy and Reinforces Seiple
• Auto Insurance Coverage Extends To Named Insured’s Son’s Girlfriend
• Adjusters Could Face Negligence Claims in Pennsylvania State Courts
• Contemporaneous Observance Requirement for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Upheld
• Superior Court Uphold Jury Verdict of Zero Damages
• Punitive Damages Awarded Against An Insured Are Not Recoverable In A Bad Faith Suit Against The Insurer
• The Supreme Court Declines to Enforce an Employer Liability Exclusion
• Defense Verdict for Chris Parrish
• Monroe County Denies Request to Sever UIM and 3rd Party Claims
• Statute of Limitations for Limited Tort Lawsuits May Be Extended
• Middle District Court Denies Carrier’s MSJ on Claims for Stacked UIM Benefits and Bad Faith
• UIM Rejection Form Upheld with Minor Typographical Error
• No UIM Coverage for Non-Resident “Driver”
• Berks County Defense Verdict
• PA Supreme Court Holds That Insureds May Assign Bad Faith Rights to Third Party Plaintiffs
• Philadelphia County Defense Verdict
• Venue Transfer Upheld Under Forum Non Conveniens
• “Named Driver Only” Provision Found To Be Valid
• Lackawanna County Court Rules How The UM/UIM Carrier Will Be Identified And What Will Be Told To The Jury
• Deviations From Statutory Requirements Continue To Render The UM/UIM Rejection Forms Void
• Trial Court holds that Limited Tort Passenger Is Full Tort While In Full Tort Vehicle
• Can a Third Party “Settlement” Preclude UIM Benefits
• What’s “Meaningful Investigation” In A UIM Claim
• Three Little Words Make All The Difference In UIM “Household Exclusion” Case
• Bad Faith Count Dismissed
• Summary Judgment Granted to Defendant in Philadelphia County under Lamp v. Heyman
• Supreme Court Clarifies Forum Non Conveniens
• Regular Use Exclusion in UM Claim Upheld, Again
• Eastern District Applies Sackett II and Seiple and Holds That After-Acquired Vehicle Clause Does Not Constitute Purchase of New Coverage to Trigger Need for New Stacking Waiver Forms
• Congratulations Jill Moffitt
• Trial Court Dismissed the Non-Economic Pain and Suffering Allegations
• Supreme Court Affirms Superior Court in Lipsky v. State Farm
• The Supreme Court Holds That The Tortfeasor Credit Under a UIM Policy Includes Damages Recovered From All Tortfeasors and Not Just Auto Insurance Policies
• The Pennsylvania Superior Court re-visits the stacking waiver issues from Sackett v. Nationwide.
• Has Medicaid Lost Its Right To Assert A Statutory Lien? It Has For The Time Being!
• Fibromyalgia: The Invisible Syndrome That Only Some Plaintiffs’ Experts Can See!
• Discovery of Surveillance Evidence in Pennsylvania
• Indemnification 101: The Basics of ‘Holding Harmless’
• The Household Vehicle Exclusion Survives One Attack, Faces Another
• Impact of the Severability Clause On Excusionary Language Under Pennsylvania Law
• Forry Ullman Obtains Defense Verdit In Post-Koken Uim Jury Trial In Philadelphia County
• Products Liability Update: Will the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts?
• Section 1722 Held To Preclude Double Recovery Of Third Party And Uim Benefits
• Can an Insurer Be Held Responsible for an Insured’s Criminal Restitution?
• Must An Insurer File A Petition Showing Good Cause To Obtain A Medical Examination?
• Assuredly Clear? A Crash Course on the Sudden Emergency Doctrine