PA Federal Court Predicts PA Supreme Court Will Adopt Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine in Property Insurance Coverage Cases

In the case of Stella Prop. Dev. and Event Prod., LLC v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. 3:24-CV-00060-SLH (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026 Smith, J.), the court ruled in favor of an insurance carrier on Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in an insurance coverage, breach of contract, and bad faith claims.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a commercial property policy that offered protection to the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff’s property allegedly sustained damages from a windstorm.

The Plaintiff had an inspection completed and submitted a claim to the insurance company for first-party property coverage. The Plaintiff provided the carrier with the inspection report.

The carrier had their own inspection completed and that report indicated that the damage to the Plaintiff’s roof involved shingles that appeared to be over twenty-five (25) years of age and in very poor condition. That expert also concluded that no sudden loss created the damages to the roof. 

The carrier also secured an engineering expert who completed an additional inspection and also concluded that the roof and the shingles on the roof were not damaged by the wind event. Based at least in part on these reports, the carrier denied the claim.

In issuing the denial, the carrier relied upon certain exclusions including a wear-and-tear exclusion and a maintenance exclusion.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed suit alleging a breach of contract and bad faith claims. The matter came before this court on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on the issues presented.

The court denied the Plaintiff’s Motions and granted the insurance company’s Motions.

In reviewing the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of contract claim, the court noted that, based upon the exclusions claimed by the carrier, the carrier was asserting that summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was inappropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the damages to the roof pre-existed the storm or were caused by the storm.

In this regard, the court reviewed the efficient proximate cause doctrine and compared it to the concurrent causation doctrine in coverage dispute matters.

In the end, this court predicated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would adopt and apply the efficient proximate cause doctrine if faced with the issue.

Applying that doctrine to the case presented, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s claims of a breach of contract is not defeated merely because wear-and-tear and/or inadequate maintenance may have contributed to the roof damage. Rather, the Plaintiff must still be provided with an opportunity to prove that the windstorm was the “dominant and efficient” cause of the roof destruction as opposed to being merely a “remote” or “incidental” cause. 

Given that there were issues of material fact in this regard, the court ruled that this question should be decided by a jury.

Relative to the carrier’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim, the court ruled that the Plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude, by clear and convincing evidence, that the carrier lacked a reasonable basis to deny the claim. 

The court noted that the record before it confirmed that the carrier relied upon detailed investigative materials and expert assessments that attributed the roof damage to decay and wear-and-tear. 

The court found that these expert assessments supplied an objectively reasonable basis for the carrier to conclude that wear-n-tear and/or inadequate maintenance, as opposed to a covered windstorm, was the dominant and efficient cause of the loss, and that the exclusions therefore applied.

The court noted that the mere possibility that the insured may prevail at proving the Plaintiff’s case in this regard “hardly equates to bad faith.” Rather, the court noted that the question under the bad faith statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371 is whether the denial lacked a reasonable basis. The court cited to other case law confirming that a reasonable basis for the denial of a claim is all that is required in order to defeat a claim of insurance bad faith.

Based on this law, the court ruled in favor of the carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the bad faith issues and dismissed that claim of the Plaintiff with prejudice.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Robert S. Stickley of Stickley Law LLC in Newtown Square, PA for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Andreas Ebner on www.pexels.com.

Philadelphia County Matter Coordinated to Matter in Jefferson County Arising Out of Same Incident

Jefferson County Courthouse

In the case of Bucci Express, LLC v. SG Freight, Inc., No. 263-CV-2025 C.D. (C.P. Jeff. Co. Dec. 29, 2025 Foradora, P.J.), the court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion for Coordination of Actions in different counties relative to separate claims arising out of the same trucking accident, one of which was filed in Jefferson County and one of which was filed in Philadelphia County. The court ruled that the Philadelphia County lawsuit would be coordinated with the case that was filed in Jefferson County. The court made this ruling pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 213.1.

According to this Opinion, this matter arose out of a fatal multi-vehicle crash involving commercial trucks. Following the crash, two (2) trucking companies files suit in Jefferson County against multiple Defendants, including Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Jefferson County lawsuit was improperly filed to block proceedings in Philadelphia County.

In issuing his ruling, the court noted that PennDOT’s presence in the case weighed heavily in the decision, noting that state law limits where that agency can be sued. The court noted that keeping the case out of Jefferson County would effectively block the Plaintiffs from pursuing certain claims against PennDOT under the applicable law.

Although the court acknowledged that Philadelphia County may have been more convenient for some of the parties in that case, the court found that key witnesses, including first responders, were based in Jefferson County and should not be required to travel long distances.

Judge Foradora also noted that many pre-trial proceedings could be handled remotely, thereby reducing travel burdens on lawyers and witnesses.

The court additionally noted that, by coordinating the lawsuits, duplicative and inconsistent rulings, Orders, or judgments would be avoided a judicial economy furthered.

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

Source: Article “Venue Fight Ends As Court Moves Fatal Trucking Cases Outside Of Phila. Courts” By Tristin Hoffman of The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 30, 2025).

Pennsylvania Lawyer Magazine Recognized on a National Level

An article of mine was featured in The Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine over the past year, which magazine was awarded a 2025 Luminary Award from the National Association for Bar Professionals!

My article entitled "Use of Exhibits in Opening Statements is Allowed" appeared in the May/June 2025 edition of the magazine. Here is a LINK to the Tort Talk post on that article, which post contains a link to the article.

I send thanks to Patricia Graybill, the editor of The Pennsylvania Lawyer magazine for agreeing to publish the article. I also extend my congratulations to her for receiving this recognition for the excellent work she has done for years with the magazine for the Pennsylvania Bar Association.

If you are interested in authoring an article, contact the Pennsylvania Bar Association via email at: editor@pabar.org.

Mock Trial Jurors Needed For Semi-Final Round of Lackawanna County Competition Set For February 24th

 

Pennsylvania Federal Court Rules that Insurance Information Is Not Admissible at Post-Koken Trial on UIM Claims

In the case of Saeli v. Geico Adv. Ins. Co., No. 1:24-CV-00025-RAL (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2026 Lanzillo, Chief Mag. J.), the Chief Magistrate Judge for the Western District Federal Court of Pennsylvania addressed a Motion In Limine filed a UIM carrier in a post-Koken case seeking to preclude the Plaintiff from introducing any evidence or testimony regarding the amount of the tortfeasor’s liability limits, the UIM limits, or any premiums paid.

The court ruled that, since the probative value of such evidence, if any, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion on the issues presented, the UIM carrier’s Motion was granted.

The court additionally found that the evidence at issue is irrelevant to the issues presented in the trial. The court noted that the central issue in the case was the extent of the damages sustained by the Plaintiff. As such, the court found that the amount of the tortfeasor’s liability limits, the UIM limits, and the premiums paid were irrelevant to such issues.

The court noted that, while the tortfeasor’s liability coverage will have to be credited to the UIM carrier, the court noted that this is a simple mathematical calculation that the court could accomplish by molding the verdict after the verdict is handed down the jury and without the need to involve the jury.

The court felt that requesting a jury to apply the liability limit against the UIM benefits coverage would unnecessarily complicate the issues before the jury and could risk prejudice to Geico.

Magistrate Judge Lanzillo included in his Opinion a review of other Pennsylvania federal court decisions on the issue and noted that all but one had held the evidence of coverage limits and premiums paid provided no benefit to the jury in determining the issue of damages in post-Koken cases and that, even if such evidence was minimally relevant, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the Defendant. See Op. at 4.

It is noted that the court additionally indicated that the Plaintiff did not file a Response to Geico’s Motion In Limine by the time of the deadline set by the court.

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

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


Please note that the Post-Koken scorecard on the Tort Talk blog will be updated with this decision.

The post-Koken scorecard on the Tort Talk blog is always freely available for research. You can access the scorecard by going to www.TortTalk.coom and scrolling a bit down the hand column to the label for Post-Koken Scorecard and clicking on the date under that.

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Greer on www. unsplash.com.

Motion For Summary Judgment Denied in Zipline Accident Case

In the case of Witkowski v. Hellerick’s Family Farm, Inc., No. 230900999 (C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 18, 2025), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its decision denying a Motion for Summary Judgment in a premises liability case.

According to the Opinion, this matter arises out of a fatal accident that occurred when the Plaintiff died after experiencing difficulties on a zipline course at the Defendant’s farm.

Prior to the incident, the Plaintiff has signed liability waivers acknowledging the risks involved in the activity.

After the accident, the Plaintiff filed a negligence suit in which recklessness was alleged as well.

The Defendant farm moved for summary judgment arguing that the signed waivers and the Agritourism Activity Protection Act shielded the Defendants from liability.

According to the Opinion, the Agritourism Activity Protection Act limits liability for agritourism providers unless gross negligence or recklessness is proven.

The court found that issues of fact with regards to whether the Defendant’s conduct constituted gross negligence or recklessness, which would negate the protections of the waivers and the act existed in the case presented. As such, the court noted that the issues should be permitted to proceed to a jury.

The trial court otherwise noted that the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds as its order did not meet the criteria for an appealable Order under Pennsylvania law given that the Order at issue was not a final Order.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Jan. 8, 2026).

Trial Court Addresses Whether a Certificate of Merit is Required

In the case of Muniz-Colon v. Friends Hospital, Sept. Term, 2025, No. 0068500065 (C.P. Phila. Co. Jan. 12, 2026 Hill, J.), the court addressed the issue of when a Certificate of Merit may be required for a professional negligence case.

According to information gathered on this case, the Plaintiff in this matter was allegedly brought to the hospital where he was allegedly assaulted and apparently knocked unconscious by the staff as he was allegedly being admitted to the facility on a 302 admission.

In response to the lawsuit filed, the Defendants all filed Motions for Non Pros due to the failure of the Plaintiff to present a Certificate of Merit under the MCARE statute.

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion under Pa. R.C.P. 1042.6(c) for a determination as to whether a Certificate of Merit was required or not.

In its decision, the court ruled that the alleged assault may have indeed occurred in the course of a professional relationship given that it occurred during the admissions process. However, the court ruled the allegations in the Complaint as involving alleged negligence that did not involve medical judgment. 

Accordingly, the court ruled that no Certificate of Merit was required for the case presented.

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


I send thanks to Attorney Robin Feeney of the Philadelphia law firm of Matkoff, Shengold, Berman, Goodnow & Associates, P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.