Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Rules in Favor of Consolidated Discovery in Post-Koken UIM Claim

In the case of Alers v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., No. 3:25-CV-01371-MEM (M.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2026 Mannion, J.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion denied a Defendant’s Motion to Sever and Stay Discovery in a post-Koken breach of contract and statutory bad faith case arising out of a motor vehicle accident.

In this case, the Defendant UIM carrier sought to sever and stay all bad faith discovery from the breach of contract claim. The Defendant carrier argued that, through the bad faith claim, the Plaintiff was seeking in discovery the production of privileged information and the carrier’s opinion work product which would prejudice the Defendant carrier in relationship to the ongoing UIM claim.

The court addressed the request for severance under F.R.C.P. 21.

Judge Malachy E. Mannion
Pa. Middle District

In reviewing the applicable factors under this analysis, Judge Mannion found that the claims raised in both the breach of contract claim and the bad faith claim were intertwined. The court also concluded that severance would not promote judicial economy. The court additionally found that there would be no prejudice to the Defendant if the Motion to Severe was denied. 

In terms of any discovery issues with regards to allegedly privileged insurance company documents, the court noted that such concerns could be addressed through incamera review of discovery materials in response to any Motion to Compel rather than through severance or bifurcation or any stay Orders, which would only serve to prolong consideration of various discovery issues.

Overall, the court found that the Defendant carrier had not met its burden in establishing that severance of the claims or stay of discovery with respect to the bad faith claim were warranted. As such, the Defendant’s Motion was denied and this Post-Koken federal court case involving UIM breach of contract and bad faith claims was allowed to proceed through discovery in a consolidated fashion.

Anyone wishing to review this case may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Jesse B. Hallinan and Attorney Thomas W. Munley of the Scranton law firm of Minora, Krowiak, Munley & Batyko for bringing this case to my attention.

This decision has been added to the Post-Koken Scorecard on the Tort Talk Blog.  The Post-Koken Scorecard is a compilation of many of the Post-Koken decisions handed down by the Pennsylvania state and federal courts since 2009.  The list does not reference all of the cases but is still a comprehensive compilation.

That Scorecard can always be freely accessed by going to www.TortTalk.com, scrolling down the right hand column of the blog to "Post-Koken Scorecard" and clicking on the date under that title.  For now, here is a quick LINK to the Post-Koken Scorecard on the Tort Talk Blog compiled by Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Addresses the Appeal Period for Appeals From Collateral Orders Where a Motion for Reconsideration Was Filed

In the case of Khalil v. Mary Jane Holme Enrich Center, No. 16 EAP 2025 (Pa. Aug. 5, 2026) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed issues relative to the time period within which an appeal may be filed from the entry of a collateral Order where a Motion for Reconsideration had been filed relative to that collateral Order.

The case arose out of a pro se dispute involving a landlord-tenant matter.

During the course of the case, pro bono counsel who had entered an appearance for the pro se tenant withdrew from the case after the completion of an Arbitration.

The tenant later challenged the withdrawal by the pro bono attorney, arguing that the attorney had not obtained leave of court to withdraw.

After a series of Motions, the trial court ultimately granted the pro bono attorney’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel. That amounted to the collateral Order at issue.

Following the entry of that collateral Order, the pro se tenant filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied.

The pro se litigant then filed a Notice of Appeal more than thirty (30) days after the entry of the collateral Order that had allowed the attorney to withdraw.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court quashed the appeal as untimely. The Superior Court explained that appeals from collateral Orders must be filed within thirty (30) days of the entry of that Order.

The Superior Court also ruled that neither a Motion for Reconsideration nor an Order denying that Motion for Reconsideration tolls or resets the appeal period.

The Superior Court also noted that the Order denying the reconsideration Motion was also not appealable in this case.

Further up the appellate ladder, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Superior Court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed that a party must file a Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days from the entry of a collateral Order in order to attempt an appeal. Otherwise, a party must wait until a final Order is entered before any appeal could be filed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court additionally confirmed that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration, or an Order denying that Motion for Reconsideration, does not affect the thirty (30) day deadline within which to attempt to file an appeal from a collateral Order.

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


Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries (Aug. 6, 2026).

Named "LAWYER OF THE YEAR" for Insurance Law in Northeastern Pennsylvania By the BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA Directory

 

Proud to note the notification received yesterday from The Best Lawyers in America Directory confirming that I have been named the 2027 "Lawyer of the Year" for Insurance Law in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The Directory noted that this is a particularly meaningful distinction in that it is awarded to individual lawyers who recieved the highest overall peer feedback in a specific practice area and geographic region.

The Directory also noted that I will be recognized in the 2027 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America for my work in Insurance Law as well as in Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants.  I am additionally proud to note that this is the 16th year in a row that I have been so recognized in the Directory.

I am grateful for all of my clients who have entrusted their matters to me for handling and I thank all those fellow members of the bar and the judiciary who have pushed me to provide the best legal services possible.

Judge Nealon of Lackawanna County Reviews the Law on Wrongful Discharge Claim Under Medical Marijuana Act

In the case of Mauger v. Scranton Hospital Company, LLC, No. 2023-CV-2381 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Aug. 5, 2026 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a detailed Opinion outlining the law surrounding a cause of action for wrongful discharge as a tort claim.

This matter arose out a situation involving a hospital nurse who filed suit against his former hospital employer asserting a single cause of action for wrongful discharge.

Judge Nealon's Opinion provides a thorough review of the law regarding an employee's use of medical marijuana any impact of the need for such medication on that person's employment status. 

The Plaintiff cited to the Medical Marijuana Act, which, in part, prohibits an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee based upon the employee’s status as a certified medical marijuana user. The Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated by the hospital based upon a drug screen test that was positive for marijuana that was due to his prescribed use of medical marijuana.

The Plaintiff was later reinstated by the hospital following the filing of a union grievance. However, the Plaintiff subsequent resigned from his position allegedly due to the constant micromanagement and correction by a supervisor.  The Plaintiff later filed suit for wrongful discharge.

The issues in this matter came before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the hospital.

Given the presence of various issues of fact before the court, the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied with respect to the nurse’s wrongful discharge claim.

However, the court did grant the hospital’s Motion for Summary Judgment relative to claims of a hostile work environment, and relative to claims of constructive discharge.

The court otherwise also granted the hospital's Motion for Summary Judgment relative to the nurse’s claims for punitive damages and for counsel fees.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Budding on www.unsplash.com.

Superior Court Ruling Affects Multi-Million Dollar Jury Verdict

In the case of Newlin v. Vita Healthcare Group, No. 259 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Aug. 4, 2026 Olson, J., Dubow, J. & McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Dubow, J.)(Concurring and Dissenting Op. by McLaughlin, J), the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that a new trial on damages was required in a nursing home death case. The Superior Court’s ruling did away with what remained of a nearly $20 million dollar jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs.

In part, the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erred in its handling of both the $4 million dollar compensatory award and the $5 million punitive damages award.

With regards to the compensatory award, the appellate court ruled that the trial court had erred in agreeing to dismiss two Defendants from the case after the jury’s verdict. According to the Opinion, the jury had not apportioned liability to each Defendant in the verdict slip. The Superior Court noted that the trial court had erred in that the trial court had no basis to determine how much of its award that the jury had intended to apportion to the dismissed Defendant.

Relative to the punitive damages award, the Superior Court ruled, based upon its review of the record, that the Plaintiffs had failed to make a case supporting the punitive damages award.

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

The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion issued by Judge McLaughlin can be viewed at this LINK.


Source: Article – “Pa. Appeals Court Wipes Out Nearly $10M In Damages In Nursing Home Death Suit, Remands For New Trial,” By Riley Brennan of the Legal Intelligencer (Aug. 5, 2026).

Superior Court Finds That Defendant Waived Right to Arbitration by Participating in the Litigation Process

In the case of Estate of Smalling v. 2990 Holme Operating, LLC, No. 2172 EDA 2025 (Pa. Super. June 30, 2026 Lazarus, P.J., Sullivan, J., and Stevens, P.J.E.) (Op. by Stevens, P.J.E.), the court affirmed a trial court Order finding that the Defendants had waived the contractual right to compel Arbitration in a wrongful death and survival action by failing to raise a request for Arbitration promptly.

The court also noted that the Defendants had substantially invoked the judicial process by way of participating in the litigation of a lawsuit, including through Preliminary Objections, other pleadings, participating in discovery and also participated in other case management activities before the Defendants sought Arbitration fourteen (14) months into the lawsuit.

As such, the the Defendants were found to have waived their contractual right to arbitration.   

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 24, 2026).

Source of above image:  Photo by Felix Mittermeier on www. unsplash.com.

Superior Court Affirms Trial Court's Refusal To Open and/or Strike a Default Judgment

In the case of Davis v. Woodbury Financial Services, Inc., No. 804 WDA 2025 (Pa. Super. July 7, 2026 Nichols, J., McLaughlin, J., and Sullivan, J.) (Op. by McLaughlin, J.), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s denial of a Petition to Strike and/or Open a Default Judgment in a dispute over the alleged mishandling of retirement funds.

The appellate court held that service by publication pursuant to a trial court Order did not reveal a fatal defect on the face of the record such that the Defendant was not entitled to an opening of a default judgment. 

The appellate court noted that the record supported the trial court’s findings that the Defendant did not act promptly, did not provide a reasonable excuse and did not otherwise assert any additional valid arguments in support of the opening of the default judgment.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 24, 2026).

Source of above image:  Photo by Sasun Bughdarya on www.unsplash.com.