Court Finds in Favor of Insurance Company in Fire Loss Case

In the case of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Russell, Feb. Term 2023, No. 0070 (C.P. Phila. Co. June 13, 2025 Garcia, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting that the Superior Court uphold the trial court’s denial of a Defendant’s post-trial motions in a property damage fire loss subrogation case.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of a Plaintiff property insurance company in a subrogation action for damages sustained to the insured’s property as a result of a fire.

In this case, the Plaintiff’s insured owned a property adjacent to the Defendant’s property. The Defendant had hired a neighborhood handyman to fix a hole in the roof of the Defendant’s property.

During the repair, a tenant in the Plaintiff’s insured’s property observed individuals on the roof of the Defendant’s property using an open flame while working. Shortly thereafter, the tenant saw smoke coming from the Defendant’s property. The fire department then arrived and extinguished a fire centered around the Defendant’s skylight.

The Defendant acknowledged the existence of the fire, which had resulted in smoke and water damage to the Plaintiff’s insured’s property. The Plaintiff insurance company paid for the property damages sustained by its insured, along with lost rent, and then sought reimbursement from the Defendant through this subrogation action.

In this matter, the trial court found that the Defendant had failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring a competent and careful contractor for work involving significant risk if not skillfully handled, all as articulated by §411 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The court emphasized that the Defendant knew that the handyman was not a qualified roofer, and that the handyman’s lack of skill, necessary precautions, and failure to have proper equipment all increased the risk of a fire during a hazardous roof repair involving an open flame. The evidence otherwise demonstrated that precaution to prevent or minimize fire damage were not taken.

As such, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff insurance company and awarded damages. The Defendant filed a post-trial Motion, arguing lack of evidence regarding negligence. That Motion was denied.

As noted, with this Rule 1925 Opinion, the trial court requested the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s denial of the Defendant’s post-trial Motions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 25, 2025).

Trial Court Dismisses Claim of Non-Trepassory Invasion Asserted Against a Defendant in a Fire Loss Case

In the case of Pursell v. DTB Services, LLC, No. 691-CV-2025 (C.P. Monroe Co. Sept. 22, 2025 C. Daniel Higgins, J.), the court sustained certain Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in a fire loss case.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant is a company that engages in the business of installing, servicing, and repairing gas fireplaces. The Plaintiffs are homeowners who utilized the Defendant’s services.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants were negligent in providing inspection and repair work on the Plaintiff’s gas fireplace.

More specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to inform the Plaintiffs that the outside vent to the fireplace was low-grade and dangerously close to combustibles. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants did not recommend any urgent corrective action or that the fireplace should not be used.

Thereafter, a fire occurred. The Plaintiffs contended that the fire was the result of combustibles located near the venting system igniting.

In one of the Counts of their Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants’ acts and/or omissions interfered with the Plaintiffs’ right of peaceful enjoyment of their real property. The Plaintiffs otherwise alleged in that Count that the Defendant committed a non-trespassory invasion of the Plaintiffs’ property by way of the Defendants’ negligent conduct and that the invasion caused the fire. The Defendants filed a Preliminary Objection to this Count asserting that the Plaintiffs failed to plead any facts that could be considered to be an invasion of their privacy.

The court noted that a claim for interference with the right of peaceful enjoyment of one’s real property is based on the private nuisance doctrine. The court noted that this doctrine is governed under Pennsylvania law by §822 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

The court noted that, under §822l, liability exists in this regard only if the contested “conduct is the legal cause of an invasion of another’s interests in the private use and enjoyment of any land.” Under the law, such an invasion must be either intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities.

The court noted that an “invasion” in this context has been identified under the law as occurring when a Plaintiff’s property interests have been encroached by something that has come onto the property against the Plaintiff’s will.

Here, the court found that the Plaintiff did not assert any facts that would allow for a jury to presume that the Plaintiff did not voluntarily use Defendant’s services and invite them onto to their property for the inspection and/or maintenance of their fireplace.

Accordingly, the court found that, regardless of whether or not the Defendant’s actions at the Plaintiffs’ home were the cause of the fire, such actions did not constitute an invasion as that term is identified by the law. Accordingly, the court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer to this Count of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Richard (Ricky) E. Santee, Esquire of the Bethlehem, PA law firm of Shay, Santee, Kelhart & Deschler, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Trial Court Urges Superior Court to Dismiss Plaintiff's Appeal for Failing to File a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal

In the case of Becker v. Empire Holdings, LLP, LLC, No. 2024-CV-05339 (C.P. Bucks Co. June 12, 2025 Corr, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal relative to the trial court’s sustaining of the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

This case arose out of issues that the Plaintiff had relative to repairs made to the Plaintiff’s Range Rover vehicle.

One of the Preliminary Objections sustained by the court resulted in the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

In its short Opinion, the trial court noted that the appeal by the Plaintiff should be dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to file his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. The trial court ruled that the Plaintiff had therefore waived all issues for appeal as a result.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Sept. 5, 2025).

SAVE THE DATE FOR A GOOD CAUSE!

 

Court Confirms Bus Operator Has No Obligation To Wait Until Passenger Sits Before Proceeding

In the case of Musser v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., May Term, 2023, No. 230502736 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 22, 2025 Jacquinto, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion detailing the reasons for its denial of the Plaintiff’s post-trial motions in a matter involving a Plaintiff who was injured when a SEPTA bus began to move before the Plaintiff had sat down as a result of which the Plaintiff allegedly fell.

The trial court concluded that its judgment should be affirmed where the trial court felt that it did not err in instructing the jury that, under Pennsylvania law, a bus operator has no obligation to wait until boarding passengers are seated before proceeding from a stop.

The jury in this matter concluded that the Plaintiff was 74% negligent, which resulted in a defense verdict.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (June 11, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Cottonbro Studio on www.pexels.com.

Punitive Damages Claims Allowed To Proceed in Case Involving Fatal Trucking Accident at a Loading Dock

In the case of Feliciano v. Landstar Inway, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00668-JMG (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025 Gallagher, J.), the court denied a trucking Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the punitive damages claims.

According to the Opinion, this fatality matter arises out of an incident during which the decedent died when he was struck by the Defendant’s truck and pinned against a loading dock at a warehouse. After suit was filed, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment the claims for punitive damages. The court allowed the punitive damages claims to move forward after finding that a reasonable jury could find that the Defendant employees acted with deliberate indifference in failing to prevent the accident from happening.

Reviewing the record, the court noted that, although the Defendant truck driver believed that he had fully engaged the brakes of the vehicle just prior to the accident, there was evidence that the Defendant driver did not engage the additional service brake while recognizing that the warning buzzer was going off indicating that the brakes may not have been activated and where that Defendant driver could not see where the Plaintiff was located. The court noted that, under such circumstances, a reasonable person could realize that someone could be significantly hurt in such a scenario. Accordingly, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source – Article: “Estate Court Recoup Punitive Damages Following Tractor-Trailer Accident, Judge Rules,” By Riley Brennan of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 19, 2025).

Source of image - Photo by Elevate on www.pexels.com.

Federal Court Requires Pleading of Sufficient Facts to Support Claims of Punitive Damages

In the case of McKinney v. GM, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-00140-SPB (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2025 Baxter, J.), the Western District Federal Court granted a partial Motion to Dismiss claims of punitive damages.

The court granted the Motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to support a punitive damages claim.

The court noted that recklessness that could support a punitive damages claim must involve more than claims of ordinary negligence. Rather, the conduct involved must be intentional and the risk substantially greater than that which is necessary for conduct to be negligent.

Here, the court found that the product liability Complaint contained no factual allegations identifying the nature of the alleged defect, how the Defendant alleged became aware of it, or what actions the Defendant failed to take in conscious disregard of that risk.

The court emphasized that punitive damages are to be considered an extreme remedy that are not available for conduct arising from mere inadvertence, mistake, or errors in judgment.

The court also noted that the Complaint failed to contain any factual allegations that even suggested that the Defendant acted with an evil motive or in conscious disregard of a known risk.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.