Court Grants Summary Judgment on Recklessness and Punitive Damages Claims in a Trucking Accident Case

In an Opinion that is tersely worded at times in the case of Medina v. One Stop Center, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-01031-CB (Jan. 2, 2025 Bissoon, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on a claim for punitive damages in a trucking accident case. In so ruling, the court also reject the Plaintiff’s liability expert’s opinion.

As to the Plaintiff’s expert, the court found that the expert’s opinion did not meet the standards required by Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The court additionally faulted the expert for veering into areas reserved for the jury, that is, by offering opinions based on his assessment of the credibility of witnesses and parties.

Overall, reviewing then facts of the case, which involved an accident when the drivers encountered unexpected black ice on the roadway, did not support a finding of reckless indifference on the part of the Defendant driver. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by one of the Defendant.

Relative to a separate decision in this Opinion on a Borrowed Servant Doctrine issue raised by a different Defendant, the Court denied that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on that issue   

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

I send thanks to Attorney Aaron H. Weiss of the Pittsburgh, PA law firm of Zimmer Kunz, PLLC, for bringing this case to my attention.

Try Eagles Try

In the case of Philadelphia Eagles Limited Partnership v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2:21-CV-01776-MMB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Baylson, J.), the court denied a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Plaintiff, Philadelphia Eagles, relative to the court’s previous decision to dismiss its Complaint in this coverage action related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff, Philadelphia Eagles, LP, asserted that it was forced to shut down or modify operations for its various insured properties due to the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly sustained financial losses as a result. The Defendant insurance carrier had denied coverage under the terms of the policy.

The Plaintiff sought a declaration that its losses were covered by the Defendant’s policy and that the Defendant was estopped from arguing that communicable diseases could not trigger coverage under the policy requiring a physical loss or damage to property to implicate coverage. In its previous decision, the trial court had followed other Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Third Circuit Court decisions to grant the Defendant carrier’s Motion to Dismiss.

Here, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied after the court again found that there mere presence of communicable disease at a business location did not render the property sufficiently dangerous to constitute a physical loss or damage that triggered insurance coverage.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Jan. 2, 2025).

No Jurisdiction Where Foreign Corporation Had No Direct Contacts With Pennsylvania

In the case of Montgomery v. Bobst Mex SA, No. 24-367 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Arteaga, Mag. J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss based upon jurisdictional issues. More specifically, the court found that the Defendant, which was a Swiss corporation, was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.

According to the Opinion, the Defendant sold all of its products, including the one that allegedly injured the Plaintiff, to a New York sole distributor. There was no evidence that the Defendant directed any of its activities at or in Pennsylvania.

The court noted that the record otherwise confirmed that there was no direct contacts by the Defendant in Pennsylvania.

Moreover, the court noted that any subsequent sales in the United States was at the discretion of the sole distributor in New York, with no direction being provided to that distributor by the Swiss corporation Defendant.

Although the Swiss Defendant allegedly had knowledge of Pennsylvania end-users of the product, the court found that evidence in this regard, without more, was insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.

In the end, the federal court found that, without evidence of a strong relationship between the Defendant, the forum, and the litigation, the court could not exercise specific jurisdiction over that Swiss corporation as a Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was granted.

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


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

Source of image:  Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on www.pexels.com.

TORT TALK AS A RESEARCH TOOL

Most Tort Talkers receive their Tort Talk info by way of email. If you are not already an email subscriber to Tort Talk and would like to become one (it's FREE), please go to Tort Talk at www.TortTalk.com and insert your email address into the Email Subscription box in the upper right hand corner of the blog and follow the instructions to complete the process.

Once you are up and running, you will automatically receive the updated posts added to Tort Talk (an average of 2-3 per week) on notable cases and trends in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation Law.

In addition to Tort Talk being a way to get free continuing updates on notable new cases and trends, it can also serve to kickstart your legal research in a streamlined fashion if you actually go to the Tort Talk site at www.TortTalk.com.  

On the site itself there are a number of research tools to help you find the case(s) or article(s) you are looking for.

Please note that Tort Talk is NOT an exhaustive legal research site--you should always supplement your research on your issue(s) presented elsewhere to ensure that you have a thorough review of the area of law in question.  Also, any case you find should be "Shepardized" to see if there has been any more recent, adverse (or favorable) rulings.

Here are the research tools available on Tort Talk that you can use to kickstart and streamline your research:


Search This Blog Box

The "Search This Blog" Box in the upper right hand column of the site allows readers to type in search terms or key words to look for posts on that particular topic. 

By typing in your search term in the white box (terms like, "delay damages," "limited tort," "slip and fall," or a case name, etc.), you will be sent to a page that will list each Tort Talk post that covers that topic. You can then click on a Link within each post that comes up in order to read the actual decision of the court.   

If the blog post does not have a Link to the decision but instead notes that you can email me for a copy, please do not hesitate to send me an email to request a copy of the decision.

Post-Koken Scorecard

You can always access the Post-Koken Scorecard to check on the status of decisions in your county on Post-Koken issues by scrolling down the right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Post-Koken Scorecard."


Facebook Discovery Scorecard

You can always access the Facebook Discovery Scorecard to check on the status of Pennsylvania decisions on Facebook Discovery issues by scrolling down the right hand column of the blog and clicking on the date under the Label "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."


Labels

Further down on the right hand column of the Tort Talk blog is a section called "Labels," which is another tool that you can use to find cases or articles on a specific topic.  

The topics, or Labels, are listed in alphabetical order.  

By clicking on the Label that's specific to your research ("Bad Faith," "Limited Tort," "Future Medical Expenses," etc.) you will be sent to a page that list each and every Tort Talk post that touches upon that topic.

Published Articles

If you type the word "Article" in the Search Box on the upper right hand corner of the blog, you will get to a number of different articles on various civil litigation issues.

You can get more specific in your search for an article as well, such as typing "Article recklessness," and that will bring you to an article on that topic.


Links

Last but certainly not least, down on the right hand column is a list of "Links" I have created to other sites, including my Firm's website and other online professional profiles that I have created along with links to some other legal and non-legal-related websites that may be of interest.



Thanks again for reading Tort Talk and thanks to all who have provided tips on breaking news and cases of note. I am grateful for your interest and support of the Tort Talk Blog.  Please feel free to send me a copy of any notable decisions you may generate in your practice for possible highlighting here on Tort Talk.

If I should be able to you help out in any way with respect to research on Tort Talk, or in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net or at 570-591-3969.  

Please also contact me should you need any help with setting up a Mediation with Cummins Mediation Services.

(570) 319-5899

dancummins@CumminsLaw.net

Link for the Marhunova v. Fitler Constr. Group Case

Here is the LINK  for the case of Marhunova v. Fitler Constr. Group, May Term, 2022, No. 01520 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 24, 2024 Foglietta, J.), which was highlighted in yesterday's Tort Talk blog post.  In this case, the trial court rejected a challenge by a Defendant to a $68.5 million dollar verdict in a case involving a construction site accident that resulted in the death of the Plaintiff construction worker.

Apologies for any confusion or consternation caused by the Link not being included in yesterday's post.

Thanks for reading Tort Talk.

Seismic Change Caused By Superior Court Decision That Allows Plaintiffs To Recover Liability and UIM Coverage From the Same Policy

The year 2025 is starting off with a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision that will cause a change of seismic propotions in automobile UM/UIM litigation going forward.

In the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Baluch, No. 2025 Pa. Super. 2 (Pa. Super. Jan. 2, 2025 Panella, P.J.E., Lane, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.)(Op. by Panella, P.J.E.), the Pennsylvania has ruled that, in certain circumstances a Plaintiff can recover both liability and UIM coverage from the same policy.

The appellate court framed the issue in this case as whether an insured is entitled to stacked UIM benefits although another household policy excludes vehicles that are insured under the policy from the definition of “underinsured motor vehicles.”

According to the Opinion, in April 2022, the Plaintiff, while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle, suffered serious bodily injury from a single vehicle motorcycle accident.

Two insurance policies issued by Erie were relevant to this case. The Plaintiff’s stepfather and mother were named insureds on a policy that covered the motorcycle and other vehicles (“Policy 1”). As a member of her parent’s household, the Plaintiff was an insured of Policy 1. Policy 1 provided $100,000 per person in liability coverage and $100,000 per person in uninsured motorist (“UM”) and UIM coverage.

The Plaintiff also had a separate policy for her personal vehicle (“Policy 2”). Policy 2 provided $100,000 in UM/UIM coverage.

The Superior Court noted that, “[i]mportantly,” under both Policy 1 and Policy 2 the insureds had selected stacking UIM coverage.

According to the Opinion, Erie paid out to the Plaintiff the $100,000 liability coverage from Policy 1 and $100,000 in UM/UIM coverage from Policy 2. However, Erie denied the Plaintiff’s claim seeking $100,000 in UM/UIM coverage from Policy 1 through stacking.

Under Policy 1, vehicles that are insured under the policy were excluded by the language of the policy from the definition of “underinsured motor vehicle.”  It is this exclusion that Erie relied upon to deny the Plaintiff UIM benefits from Policy 1.

The Superior Court disagreed with the carrier’s position, as well as the trial court’s position, that the resolution of the issue presented was controlled by Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 535 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc) and Newkirk v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 564 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 1989).

The Superior Court noted that the Wolgemuth and Newkirk decisions stand for the proposition
that liability coverage and primary underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage cannot come from the same, single policy. The Superior Court in this Erie Insurance v. Baluch case emphasized that the Wogelmuth and Newkirk cases addressed only a single insurance policy, not any issues of stacked coverage between two or more policies.

The Superior Court distinguished this Erie Insurance v. Baluch case by noting that this Baluch case involved secondary UIM coverage on another vehicle in the household that was stacked on top of the primary UIM coverage from a separate policy that actually covered the vehicle/motorcycle that was involved in the accident.

The Superior Court reasoned that when an insured has their own motor vehicle insurance policy that provides stacked UIM coverage, under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, they are entitled to stack UIM coverage from other household policies unless they expressly choose to waive stacked coverage. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1738(a).

In this regard, the Superior Court cited favorably to the case of Gallagher v. GEICO, 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019) and related cases as precedent that prevents an automobile insurance carrier from having policy language that acts as a de facto waiver of stacked coverage where the MVFRL requires carriers to secure written waivers of stacked coverage from its insureds.

Here, the Superior Court found that the insured Plaintiff elected and paid for stacked UIM coverage under her own separate policy. As such, Erie Insurance Exchange’s limited definition of “underinsured motor vehicle,” in the eyes of this Superior Court panel, acted as a disguised waiver of UIM coverage and the Court therefore found the exclusionary language under the policy to be invalid as conflicting with the requirements of the MVFRL relative to UIM coverage.

Accordingly, the Superior Court ruled that, because Erie’s policy provision prevented the Plaintiff from recovering stacked UIM benefits for which she paid, and given that the trial court had erred in concluding that the present case was controlled by Wolgemuth and Newkirk, the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision and entered a ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.

In the end, the Superior Court reasoned that, under Pennsylvania law, an injured party should be entitled to receive the coverage for which they paid. Here, the Plaintiff paid for stacked coverage and, in the eyes of this panel, was entitled to such coverage.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Scott Cooper, Esq. of the Harrisburg, PA law firm of Schmidt Kramer, as well as Adam T. Wolfe, Esq. and Ally Sholley, Esq. of the Enola, PA law firm of Shollenberger, Januzzi & Wolfe for bringing this notable decision to my attention.

Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict Upheld By Philadelphia Court

In the case of Marhunova v. Fitler Constr. Group, May Term, 2022, No. 01520 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 24, 2024 Foglietta, J.), the trial court rejected a challenge by a Defendant to a $68.5 million dollar verdict in a case involving a construction site accident that resulted in the death of the Plaintiff construction worker.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff's decedent fell from the fifth floor of a building to his death.  Among the claims presented was that the Plaintiff's decedent was not presented with fall protection equipment.

In reviewing post-trial motions, the trial court judge wrote in his Rule 1925 Opinion that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.  The court noted that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to enable the jury to make a determination as to who the alleged general contractor on the job was and who, therefore, was responsible for the provision of safety equipment on the site. 

In response to the challenges to the amount of the award, the court otherwise held that there was no evidence that the jury's award resulted from bias, impartiality, prejudice or ill will.  The court instead found that the verdict was supported by the evidence presented and that the verdict was not grossly excessive under the circumstances and, therefore, did not shock the court's conscience.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  Article - "Phila. Judge Upholds $68.5M Verdict Over Construction Worker's Death" by Aleeza Furman of The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 27, 2024).

Source of above image:  Photo by Sylvia Brazzoduro on www.unsplash.com.