In a recent opinion, the Federal Court for the Eastern District of PA ruled in favor of a Lyft driver, resolving a dispute over uninsured motorist (UM) coverage in Ahtasham v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01673-GJP (E.D. Pa. Pappert, J.) The case centered around a...
Articles/E-Alerts
Supreme Court Upholds the Regular Use Exclusion
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No 77, MAP 2022 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (Maj. Op. by Donahue, J.) (Concurring Op. by Wecht, J.) upheld the validity of the Regular Use Exclusion and ruled that, as presented in this case, the Regular...
Eastern District Weighs In On Service
In London-Walker v. Walgreens Family of Cos., No. 23-CV-2868 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2023), Judge Kenney from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether timely service of a Writ of Summons on the third-party administrator representative for Defendant...
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
In Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 861 (3rd Cir. Sept. 29, 2022, Randel, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a selection of lower UIM limits form under Section 1734 was required when an additional vehicle was added to an...
Expert Testimony Not Required In Cases Where Causation Is “Obvious”
The Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held in Bixler v. Lamendola (Civil Action 3:20-CV-1819, M.D. Pa., July 5, 2022) that expert medical testimony was not required to prove the causal relationship between the trauma sustained and an alleged resulting injury in...