Federal Court Addresses Request to Amend Complaint in a UIM Bad Faith Claim

In the case of Binotto v. Geico, No. 3:22-CV-210 (W.D. Pa. May 30, 2025 Haines, J.), the court denied a Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint in order to allege bad faith against the carrier.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs had previously filed a Second Amended Complaint which included allegations of bad faith against Geico. However, the Plaintiffs opted to withdraw that Second Amended Complaint under an indication that they thought that the case would settle with the resolution of the summary judgment proceedings. 

When the case did not settle after the court’s resolution of the summary judgment motions, the Plaintiffs then presented this Motion for Leave of Court to File a Third Amended Complaint in order to put the bad faith claim back into play.

The court reviewed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which sets out the standard for granting leave to amend a Complaint when a responsive pleading has already been served. Under that rule, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or with leave of court. The rule additionally states that the court should freely give leave of court when justice so requires.

However, the court in this matter noted that the policy favoring liberal amendments is not without bounds. The decision on whether to grant or deny a Motion for Leave to Amend still rests within the sound discretion of the district court.

The court noted that a federal district court may deny leave to amend a Complaint where it is apparent from the record that (1) the moving party has demonstrated undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives, (2) the amendment would be futile, or (3) the amendment would prejudice the other party.

In this case, the court found that there is no prejudice to the Defendant by the proposed Third Amended Complaint. The court additionally found that, while the Motion for Leave was filed late in the litigation, the court did not find that the Plaintiff acted with any undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motives. The court also noted that the trial date was still several months away.

Accordingly, the court addressed the element of whether the allowance of an amendment would be futile under the case presented. In this regard, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant carrier never had any intention of fairly and in good faith attempting to negotiate a settlement.

Under the facts presented in this case, the court found that the Defendant carrier’s delay in offering its settlement amount until the summary judgment proceedings were resolved and the Defendant carrier’s subsequent low settlement offer did not amount to clear and convincing evidence of bad faith in any event.

The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the Defendant acted in bad faith by failing to investigate, allegedly misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to make a reasonable offer in failing to explain the offer. The court found that there were no facts presented in the proposed Third Amended Complaint to support those inferences drawn by the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.

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

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

Superior Rejects Prothonotary's Rejection of a Writ of Summons That Had an Electric Signature

In the case of Scheibe v. Woodloch Resort, No. 1478 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. May 20, 2025 Stabile, J., McLaughlin, J., and Lane, J.) (Op. by Lane, J.), the appellate court vacated a Pike County trial court’s Order granting a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of the Defendant.  In the lower court proceedings, the trial court had dismissed the action with prejudice based upon the filing of a Praecipe for the Writ of Summons beyond the statute of limitations.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the Complaint was timely filed where the Prothonotary’s office acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on the last day of the limitations period.  The appellate court also noted that the Prothonotary lacked the authority to refuse to docket that Complaint based upon a non-compliance with local rules of court where the Complaint otherwise met the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

This case involved allegations that the Plaintiff was injured while attempting to use an inflatable water slide erected for guests use at the Woodloch Resort.

Six (6) days before the expiration of the applicable two year statute of limitations, the Plaintiff’s attorney mailed an electronically signed copy of a Praecipe For Writ of Summons through one day delivery by the Postal Service to the Prothonotary’s office. The USPS tracking information indicated the Praecipe was delivered the following day. However, the Prothonotary’s office did not docket the Praecipe for the rest of the week.

Rather, a clerk from the Prothonotary’s office contacted the Plaintiff’s counsel on the last date of the limitations period to advise that the Praecipe would not be docketed because it had an electronic signature in violation of the local rules that required original signatures.

Plaintiff’s counsel then prepared a hand-signed Praecipe that was delivered overnight and docketed the day after the statute of limitations had expired.

The Defendants’ moved for judgment on the pleadings under an allegations that the suit was not filed within the statute of limitations. 

The trial court granted the motion based upon a strict application of the statute of limitations. The trial court noted that it did not hold any oversight over the policies and procedures of the Prothonotary’s office.  The trial court found that the properly filed Praecipe was not docketed until after the statute of limitations had expired.

The Superior Court reversed.  The appellate court first confirmed that there was no requirement in the Rules of Civil Procedure for a Praecipe to be hand-signed by a party or their attorney, as the rules contemplated that a “signature” could include a computer-generated signature.

The Superior Court additionally held that, under the rules, documents mailed to the Prothonotary’s office were deemed to be filed when received by that office as a litigant would have no control over when that office would stamp and process the filing.

The Superior Court additionally confirmed that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure expressly prohibited the rejection of a filing that complied with those Rules of Civil Procedure where that filing did not meet the requirements of a local rule.

The Superior Court also found that the Prothonotary has no discretion to reject documents due to defects, as such authority lays with the trial court.

Accordingly, the Superior Court agreed that the Complaint was timely filed. The rationale of the Superior Court was that the Prothonotary had acknowledged that it had received the filing prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.  The Court reierated that the Prothonotary had no discretion to refuse to docket the Praecipe as it complied with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

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


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert” on www.Law.com (June 3, 2025).

Claims of Recklessness and Punitive Damages Allowed To Proceed in Premises Liability Case

In the case of K.H. v. Mill Run Campground, No. 2197 of 2023, G.D. (C.P. Fay. Co., March 10, 2025 Vernon, J.), the court denied Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant on claims of recklessness and for punitive damages in a premises liability case. According to the Opinion, the case involved a young child who fell off a set of bleachers.

The court overruled the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and held that, where a Plaintiff stated a cognizable negligence claim and generally averred that the Defendant acted with the state of mind necessary for an award of punitive damages, the Defendant’s challenge to these types of claims was premature such that the Preliminary Objections would be denied. The Defendant was advised that the issues could be revisited in a Motion for Summary Judgment after the close of discovery.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 14, 2025).

Issues of Fact Defeat Summary Judgment Relative To Fall Allegedly Caused by Floor Mat

In the case of Montanez-Fontanez v. Lehigh Valley Health Network, No. 2023-CV-0880 (C.P. Leh. Co. Dec. 17, 2024 Reichley, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a case involving a Plaintiff who was allegedly injured when the wheel was of a walker she was using caught on a worn floor mat and caused her to fall at the entrance to the Defendants’ building where she was visiting for physical therapy. The court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the existence of genuine issues of material fact that required resolution by a jury.

The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the Defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition asserted by the Plaintiff.

The court also found that a genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the alleged condition of the floor mat amounted to an unreasonable risk of harm for visitors to the facility.

Based upon these issues of fact, the court denied the Motion for Summary Judgment.

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


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (May 8, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by RDNE Project on www.pexels.com.

Federal Western District Court Puts the Brakes on Evidence of Certain Insurance Matters in a Post-Koken Case

In the Post-Koken federal court case of Binotto v. Geico, No. 3:22-CV-210 (W.D. Pa. May 30, 2025 Haines, J.), the court granted the Defendant UIM carrier’s Motion In Limine to preclude evidence of the UIM limits or premium paid at the trial of a post-Koken matter. 

The court addressed the argument of whether such evidence is relevant in a post-Koken trial. Included in that assessment was whether or not the probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusing of the issues presented. In this regard, the court cited to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.

The court in this Binotto matter stated that its research revealed that the courts in Pennsylvania are split on this issue. This court noted that it was choosing to follow the case of Lucca v. Geico Ins. Co., 2016 WL 3632717 (E.D. Pa. July, 2016) and its progeny. 

Relying upon that case law, the Binotto court held that the “limits and premiums of Geico’s insurance policy offered no benefit to fact finder’s determinations of the value of Plaintiffs’ injuries.”

As such, the court ruled that evidence of the carrier’s policy limits and premiums paid were irrelevant. 

The court additionally held that, even if such evidence was somehow found to be relevant to the injury and damages assessments, any probative value of such evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the Defendant carrier.

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

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

Source of image:  Photo by Instawalli on www.pexels.com.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Expands Ability of Claimants to Secure Recoveries in Work-Related Fatal Accident Matters

In the case of Steets v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., (WCAB), No. 3 MAP 2024 (Pa. May 30, 2025) (Op. by Donohue, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent in order to allow a new available of worker’s compensation claims to go forward. 

In this decision, the Supreme Court created new law and cleared the way for the estates of those individuals who died from work-related injuries to collect benefits related to claims for disfigurement and injury.

Justice Christine Donohue authored the Opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Deborah Todd and Justices Kevin Dougherty, Sallie Updyke Mundy and Daniel McCaffery. Justices David Wecht and Kevin Brobson dissented in separate Opinions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion for this decision may click this LINK.

Justice Wecht's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Justice Brobson's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article – “Pa. High Court Rejects Years of Precedent Barring Recovery of Benefits For Workers Who Died From Work-Related Injuries,” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (May 30, 2025).

ARTICLE: 5 Tips to Improve Your Chances for Success at a Mediation

The below article of mine was recently published in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission from the publisher.

5 Tips to Improve Your Chances for Success at a Mediation


By Daniel E. Cummins

The current trend in civil litigation matters, especially with more generous, headline grabbing jury verdicts coming down in the time since the pandemic, is that most cases are being resolved by way of nonbinding mediations. Experience shows that taking the following steps in advance of mediations and at mediations can improve one’s chances for a favorable settlement of a matter.

Trust Your Selected Mediator


Whether your mediator has a background as a plaintiff’s attorney or an insurance defense attorney, or both over the course of their career, every mediator worth their salt understands the need to approach a mediation from an entirely neutral perspective. It can be safely stated that most, if not all, mediators take pride in their ability to set aside any preconceived notions with respect to litigation matters and thereby offer the parties a balanced view of the pros and cons of the claims and defense presented.

And so once you have vetted and selected your mediator, you should trust your mediator to conduct a fair review of the file in order to assist all parties in working toward an amicable resolution of the matter.

Zoom Is Just as Effective


In the time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of remote meeting platforms, such as Zoom, has become the norm for mediations and arbitrations. Experience advises that virtual mediations are just as effective as mediations that are held in person.

The use of remote means to complete meditations also has the added benefit of reducing the stress on the parties involved. Plaintiffs still get to have their day in court but are able to do so from the comfort of their own home or their attorney’s office. Claims professionals participating remotely will have avoided the stress and expense attendant with being required to travel to be present at an in-person and may thereby be in a more comfortable frame of mind as the negotiations begin.

Whether a mediation is set to take place virtually or in person, the key to your success at a mediation, regardless of the format, is to be fully prepared to present your client’s case at the mediation.

Be Prepared


On the plaintiff’s side of a mediation, the day of the mediation is usually going to turn out to be that client’s one day in court. On the defense side, the mediation is a day for the carrier to try to close another file by way of a reasonable settlement and thereby save on further defense costs. As such, whether counsel is on the plaintiff’s side of the matter or the defense side of the matter, with the attorney serving as the mouthpiece for the client, the client deserves counsel that is fully prepared and knows the file inside and out.

Accordingly, in preparation for a mediation, counsel should expect that opposing counsel will be perusing every page of every document in the file in an effort to prepare for the meeting. As such, the file should be equally thoroughly reviewed on your own side as you never know what opposing counsel may find in the deepest corners of the file that could hurt your client’s case.

For example, a gold mine in this regard includes physical therapy notes in which there is typically a treasure trove of information that could help or hurt either side of the case. It also is advisable to peruse the transcripts of the depositions of the parties and witnesses completed in the case in order to be reminded of the overall tone of the case as you prepare to negotiate on behalf of your client at a mediation.

Perhaps one of the most important parts of preparing for a mediation is immersing oneself into the thought processes of opposing counsel in order to fully anticipate the arguments that opposing counsel will make to the mediator. What will opposing counsel’s arguments be on the liability issues? What will opposing counsel’s arguments be on the prior medical history or causation issues? What will opposing counsel argue relative to the type and extent of the injuries and economic damages alleged? Write down an outline of responses to each of these anticipated arguments so that you are prepared to quickly counter the anticipated arguments from the opposition.

Part of being fully prepared for a mediation should also include a conference with one’s own client or insurance company representative prior to the mediation in an effort to determine what expectations exist and, if necessary, to begin to temper or manage such expectations.

Fully preparing for the mediation will serve to avoid surprises for counsel or the client and may make the process move faster given that you will have all of the necessary information to negotiate at the forefront of your mind and at your fingertips.

Be Sure to Exchange Submissions With the Other Side


In addition to planning to draft a mediation memorandum that is concise and to the point, one should also plan to share that memorandum and the supporting exhibits with the other side. Nothing may further the chances for success at a mediation more than sharing one’s submissions with the other side and requesting that the information being exchanged be shared with the opposing party or the opposing insurance company in advance of the mediation.

It is always wise to draft a mediation memorandum that pointedly, but respectfully, emphasizes the weaknesses of your opponent’s case. Soften the harshness of the presentation of information that is detrimental to the other side by phrasing it in terms of the real world impact of that evidence by noting how a jury may react to that information when it comes out at trial.

To add to the credibility of your submissions, it may also be wise to suggest that you acknowledge and understand the issue with your own case while still attempting to minimize the importance of those difficulties.

The mediation memorandum should also outline the reasons that the opposing party should desire to have the case amicably resolved as opposed to litigated further or tried. Never hesitate to point out that a settlement will save time and expenses and will avoid the uncertainty of a jury verdict.

In terms of supporting exhibits, only provide the mediator with the most pertinent liability documents, photographs, medical records, and economic damages supports necessary to drive home the salient points of your case or defense. A documents dump of voluminous records will be frowned upon by the mediator and will only serve to increase the expenses of the mediation given the extra time it will take for the mediator to wade through the documentation. In this digital age of litigation, the symbolism attendant with a large binder of documents that a big binder equals a big case is no longer relevant.

An attorney’s credibility will be enhanced by that attorney taking the time to pinpoint the most relevant documentation to present to the mediator in advance of the mediation. Should there be additional, more detailed documentation you might wish to share with the mediator, you could always have that ready to show the mediator those documents at the mediation.

Also know and keep in mind that, given that the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to discovery are designed to provide for full disclosure and to prevent any surprises at trial, there will likely be no secrets on how you will likely present your case at trial by the time you get to a mediation. As such, there is really no reason not to share your mediation memorandum and supporting exhibits with the other side. As noted above, the sharing of your submissions with the other side will not only highlight to the other side the difficulties they may face with their case, but will also let the other side see and know that you are ready, willing, and able to go to bat for your own client at trial if it comes to that.

Certainly, if you are going to instead keep your mediation memorandum and exhibits confidential from the opposing side and only submit them to the mediator, be sure to give the other side the professional courtesy of a heads up in this regard before the other side submits their materials to the mediator. Otherwise, you could look petty, you may irk the opposing counsel and party, and you may cause the mediation to get off to a bad start by creating negative feelings which, in the end, could hurt or delay your client’s chances for a favorable outcome at the mediation.

Avoid Posturing for the Sake of Posturing


Posturing for the sake of posturing at a mediation is never advisable. Everyone involved in the proceedings can easily see posturing for what it is, i.e., the taking of a stance that bears no reasonable resemblance to a fair and practical evaluation of the case presented. The act of presenting an entirely unreasonable offer or demand at a mediation really serves no purpose and hurts the credibility of the attorney advancing such positions to the detriment of that attorney’s client or insurance carrier.

Knowing where your endgame may be in terms of a settlement figure, the better approach at a mediation is to make measured moves in the negotiations that signal a willingness to negotiate while still remaining firm on one’s belief as to the proper number for a settlement from the perspective of your client.

In the end, each side should work with the mediator in an effort to tap out the other side’s complete settlement authority and get to the number that perhaps no one is completely happy with but is more than content with to call it a day in order to avoid additional time-consuming and expensive litigation along with the uncertainty of a jury verdict.

Daniel E. Cummins is the managing attorney at Cummins Law where he focuses his practice on motor vehicle and trucking liability cases, products liability matters, and premises liability cases. He also serves as a mediator for the Federal Middle District Court and for Cummins Mediation in these types of cases. He is additionally the sole creator and writer of the Tort Talk Blog at www.TortTalkcom.


Reprinted with permission from the June 4, 2025 edition of the "The Pennsylvania Law Weekly © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.