Organizer of Sports Tournament Who Required Attendees To Stay At a Hotel Dismissed as a Defendant in Premises Liability Case

In the case of E.Z. v. JSKLD Hospitality Enterprise, LLC, No. 2-23-CV-835-RJC (W.D. Pa. March 14, 2025 Colville, J.), a federal district court granted a Motion to for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of a certain Defendant sued by a Plaintiff in a premises liability case.

In this matter, the Plaintiff sued the owner of the hotel where the accident happened along with a Defendant entity that ran ice hockey tournaments and who required the participants in the tournament to stay at the hotel.

The entity that ran the ice hockey tournaments filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings seeking to be dismissed on the grounds that it had no duty to maintain the premises where the accident happened.   

In this matter, the district court reaffirmed the general rule of law that premises liability does not extend to parties who are not in control of the relevant premises. Rather, the premises liability is focused on the relationship between the individual or entity in control of the premises and the business invitee who ventured on the premises.

The court ruled that the Plaintiffs cannot impute a premises liability duty upon a third-party who is not affiliated with the property.

More specifically, the court ruled that the fact that the organizer of the tournament merely place a hotel on an approved list for the attendees of the tournament did not impose a duty on the organizer of the tournament to inspect that hotel. Furthermore, any such alleged duties were entirely duplicative of the duties already imposed upon the hotel operator itself.

The court offered the additional rationale in support of its Motion to Dismiss by asserting that extending duties to persons without control over the property has no social utility and would, instead, reduce the safety incentives for the actual property owner.

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


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

Co-Owner of Premises Not an Indispensable Party to a Slip and Fall Lawsuit Where that Co-Owner Does Not Exercise Control Over the Premises

In the case of Simone v. Alam, No. 35 MAP 2024 (Pa. March 20, 2025) (Op. by Mundy, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a slip and fall concluded that a tenant in common who did not exercise possession or control over the property is not an indispensable party in a premises liability action.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a resident in a multi-tenant building, who slipped and fell on ice in a common area.

The Plaintiff sued the owner of the premises and asserted that he was responsible for the common areas.

The trial court had dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to join an indispensable party, that being the owner’s brother, who was a co-owner of the property. The trial court had held that all co-owners must be joined in a premises liability action. The Superior Court affirmed.

As noted above, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Court found that liability in premises liability cases is based upon possession and control, not mere ownership. The court noted that, since the record revealed that the owner who was sued was the sole manager who controlled the property, the owner’s brother was not an indispensable party under the circumstances.

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


I thank the Plaintiff’s attorney, Jacqueline Morgan, as well as Michael W. Landis, of the same law firm of Lowenthal & Abrams, P.C. in Bala Cynwyd, PA for brining this case to my attention.

Court Rejects Forum Non Conveniens Argument Relative to Claims Arising Out of a Stay at a Mexican Resort

In the case of Dent v. Amresorts, L.P., No. 2:24-CV-06354-MAK (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2025 Kearney, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Dismiss a wrongful death claim arising out of a Plaintiff’s death at an all-inclusive resort in Mexico. The Plaintiffs sued the United States owners and managers of the all-inclusive resort for their negligence in ensuring the safety of their guest.

According to the Opinion, prior to traveling to the all-inclusive resort in Mexico owned and operated by the American Defendants, the Plaintiffs allegedly contacted the resort to inquire about its medical services. According to the Plaintiffs, the resort represented that it had a doctor available 24-hours a day, an ambulance located on site, and a staff that was certified in CPR. The resort also claimed that it was located thirty (30) minutes away from the cities of Cancun and Playa del Carmen.

While visiting the resort, the Plaintiff’s husband began to complain of chest pains and requested aspirin. The Plaintiff went to the resort’s clinic and was notified by the on-site physician that the resort did not have any aspirin. The physician went to the Plaintiff’s room and diagnosed the husband as suffering a heart attack. The physician arranged for an ambulance that arrived thirty (30) minutes later.

The ambulance then took the Plaintiff’s husband to a private hospital an hour away.

Then, the hospital staff at that hospital demanded that the Plaintiff pay $3,000.00 for her husband to even enter the hospital. The hospital then demanded $41,000.00 to provide medical care and refused to treat the Plaintiff’s husband until that amount was paid. That hospital also refused to transfer the Plaintiff’s husband to a public hospital.

While trying to arrange a wire transfer for the $41,000.00, the Plaintiff’s husband passed away.

The hospital in Mexico then refused to release the Plaintiff’s husband’s body until the Plaintiff paid the $41,000.00 that was demanded. According to the Opinion, that Mexico hospital later billed the Plaintiff’s health insurance company over a $100,000.00 for services that was not performed.

The Plaintiff sued the American Defendants in this case for negligent medical assistance. The Plaintiff more specifically alleged that the Defendants negligently failed to have aspirin or an ambulance on site and negligently transported her husband to a private hospital further away from the public hospitals that were presumably located in Cancun or Playa de Carmen.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the American Defendants knew or should have known that the private hospital would charge guests exorbitant fees before agreeing to render medical care. There were further allegations that the American Defendants profited by sending guests to the hospital that the Plaintiff’s husband was sent to.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and asserted that the Plaintiff had failed to name necessary parties, including hotel manager, the on-site physician, the ambulance company, the EMTs, and the private hospital and its staff.

The Defendants further sought to dismiss the case under a forum non conveniens argument, arguing that the case would be more appropriately heard in Mexico.

The court denied that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and found that the Plaintiff did not fail to join indispensable parties. The court found that the parties suggested by the named Defendants were not necessary to resolve the Plaintiff’s claims and that the Defendants did not provide any explanation as to why those other proposed Defendants would be required to be a part of this case.

The court additionally emphasized that the Plaintiff was not alleging a medical negligence claim but rather, was focusing on an alleged managerial and supervisory negligence claims unrelated to the private hospital’s medical care.

The court further held that the Defendants had failed to show why the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court found that the Defendants did not demonstrate the availability of an alternative forum as they had not shown that they were subject to service of process in Mexico or that they would consent to settle service.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 20, 2025).

Superior Court Addresses When Auto Insurance Carrier Must Present Insured With New UIM Coverage Selection Forms

In the case of Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. McNear, No. 861 MDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Feb. 26, 2025 Nichols, J., King, J., and Sullivan, J.), the court affirmed a trial court decision that an insurance company was not obligated to obtain new UIM coverage selection forms whenever an insured added vehicles to their policy.

According to the Opinion, back in 2012, the insured initially signed an election form for less than full UIM coverage. More specifically, the insured selected benefits of $50,000.00 per person, $100,000.00 per accident stacked across three (3) vehicles covered by the policy.

The insured then renewed their policy ever six (6) months and, between 2012 and 2018, the added and removed vehicles, with policy covering as many as four (4) and as few as two (2) vehicles.

The carrier did not obtain new limited UIM election forms whenever the insureds added vehicles to the policy. The court also noted that the insureds never affirmatively requested any changes to their benefits.

By the year 2018, the insured’s policy again covered three (3) vehicles. In 2018, one of the insureds was involved in an accident.

The insureds covered the policy limits from the tortfeasor’s vehicle. The insured then filed a UIM claim. The carrier paid the UIM benefits of $50,000.00 stacked on the three (3) vehicles covered on the policy.

The insured disputed the amount paid and asserted that the addition of vehicles to their policy constituted “new purchases” coverage which required the carrier to obtain new UIM elections each time. The Plaintiffs attempted to assert that, because the carrier failed to obtain new UIM election forms, the carrier should be forced to pay full UIM benefits up to the bodily injury limits of their policy, i.e., $250,000.00 stacked across three (3) vehicles, or $750,000.00.

The carrier rejected that claim and commenced this declaratory judgment action. 

As noted, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision rejecting the Plaintiff’s arguments. The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1734 requires only that the carrier “issue” UIM coverage in the amount selected by a named insured in writing signed by a named insured.

The court also noted that 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1791 permits the carrier to rely upon the elections and notices regarding the availability of UIM benefits at the time of the application for original coverage.

Here, because it was undisputed that the insured had completed a “sign-down” form selecting limited UIM coverage, and given that neither named insured on the policy affirmatively reflected any change, in writing, to the UIM coverage, and given that the insureds did not object to any alleged defects in the §1791 notices they received at the time the insured applied for the coverage, the appellate court ruled that the original “sign-down” form remained effective at the time the Plaintiff was involved in the subject accident.

The court additionally noted that, pursuant to §1791, the insurance company was under no obligation to provide additional notices regarding the limited UIM benefits the insured had originally selected. In the end, the court ruled that, once the insured elected limited UIM benefits when applying for the original policy, the insurance company was entitled to presume that the insured selection remained effective until affirmatively changed by a named insured.

Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of the carrier.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (March 18, 2025).

PLEASE SAVE THE DATE -- UPCOMING CLE PRESENTED BY HARRIS BOCK, ESQ. AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION INSTITUTE

 I thank Harris Bock for inviting me to present at his famous annual CLE this year.

I will be presenting an update on notable court decisions and trends in Pennsylvania personal injury litigation matters over the past year or so as highlighted on my Tort Talk Blog (www.TortTalk.com).

Need CLE credits?

Please consider registering for this seminar at which you can attend via Zoom or live and in-person in Philadelphia on April 24, 2025.

Thanks for considering -- hope to see you there.

 

Federal Court Addresses Jurisdiction Over Claims of Defamation Over the Internet

In the case of Rhodes v. Azeff, No. 2:22-CV-00101-WSH (W.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2025 Hardy, J.), the court addressed issues of personal jurisdiction that were based upon alleged defamatory statements that were published online.

In this case, the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction and also granted the Motion to Dismiss the counterclaims.

In this decision, the court provided an excellent overview as to the standard of review relative to the issue of personal jurisdiction over a Defendant.

The court reiterated Third Circuit law that publishing statements on the internet does not subject the author to personal jurisdiction anywhere in the world from which a user could access the internet.

The court noted that an out-of-state person does not expressly target Pennsylvania nearly by publishing statements on the internet that are accessible from Pennsylvania.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Thomas McDonnell of the Pittsburgh office of the Summers, McDonnell, Hudak, Guthrie & Rauch, P.C. law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Addresses Section 1983 and Whistleblower Law Issues in Employment Law Case

In the case of Krug v. Bloomsburg University, No. 4:18-CV-1669 (M.D. Pa. March 11, 2025 Wilson, J.), the court denied the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a matter of law and a new trial following the entry of a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in a §1983, Title VII, Title IX, Whistleblower Law and PHRC case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, a former Bloomburg University Dean, brought a lawsuit claiming that he faced retaliation and was fired for helping an administrative assistant file a sexual harassment report against another employee of the school. The Plaintiff prevailed at trial and the motions at issue followed.

After reviewing the pertinent law, Judge Wilson denied the motions.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Barry Dyller, Esquire of the Wilkes-Barre, PA law firm of Dyller & Solomon, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.