The case of Zavodnick, Zavodnick and Lasky v. National Liabilty & Fire Insurance is an important lesson on two counts. First, it is imperative in settlement negotiations to remember the importance of zealous, effective representation of clients. Second, when an attorney makes a mistake, don’t simply hope that it will go away. When in doubt, remember the importance of candor and leave no crucial details out. What follows is a detailed summary of the case.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of an employer and its insurer in an underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) case. In Morales v. Travelers Property Casualty Company the Court determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact at hand when all parties agreed that an employer previously signed off on two UIM coverage rejection forms. The two issues involved in the matter were (1) whether the employer’s completion of the rejection forms complied with 75 Pa.S.C. § 1731 and (2) whether the employer give plaintiff employee notice of such rejection.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently considered what materials are discoverable by an insured in a bad faith action against his/her insurer.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association has announced that Philadelphia lawyer and PADC member Kathleen D.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has adopted new Pa.R.C.P.
Almost 100 attorneys were captivated by and benefitted from the inaugural event of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel’s (“PADC”) Womens’ Initiative, “Leaders in the Courtroom: From the Trial Courts to the United States Supreme Court” held recently at Cozen O’Connor’s Susquehanna Conference Room in Philadelphia.
The plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell on some debris that was dark, slippery and smelled of rotten banana on the main walkway of the parking lot as she was leaving a Shop Rite grocery store. She filed suit for negligent maintenance of the premises.
This case of Gallagher v.
The “Hills and Ridges Doctrine” precludes liability “where the accident occurred at a time when general slippery conditions prevailed in the community as a result of recent precipitation.” However, the hills and ridges doctrine can only be
Pennsylvania's Superior Court has held that opposition to a motion for summary judgment requires rebuttal evidence, not just rebuttal allegations. For a detailed summary of the case of American Southern Insurance Co. v. Halbert