Recent News

PADC's Executive Committee is pleased to offer a first ever "Year in Review" detailing PADC's activities in 2018-2019.

Almost 100 lawyers, speakers and sponsors attemded the morning CLE session of PADC's June 4, 2019 Annual Meeting & Golf Outing held at the Unioin League at Torresdale Golf Club in Philadelphia.

Almost 50 Philadelphia lawyers attended PADC's May 9 Seventh Annual Young Lawyers Program at the downtown DoubleTree Hotel. Entitled "A Young Lawyer's Guide to Litigating in Today's World", attendees heard presentations on changes to the Philadelphia CCP affecting civil defemse practice and advice for dealing wth difficult attorneys during discovery.

As we are all aware, the Philadelphia court system has been the subject of a cyber-attack. We are aware that our respective members all have questions and we have met with Judge New and Judge Allen to obtain answers to some of those questions. This memorandum reflects the results of that meeting and is being circulated with Judge New’s and Judge Allen’s consent.

PADC’s Executive Committee is very pleased to announce the 2019 award recipients. The awards will be presented to the recipients at PADC’s June 4 Annual Meeting & Golf Outing.

PADC recently filed comments with Pennsylvania's Civil Procedural Rules Committee oppisong the proposed revocation of Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a.1) and related medical malpractice venue rules. This opposition is based on the fact that there is no data to support the conclusion that the Rule is no longer needed

The Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s attached April edition of Counterpoint contains the most recent version of the proposed Product Liability Suggested Standard Jury Instructions, which have been sent to all Commonwealth of Pennsylvania judges. Counterpoint also contains a related article entitled “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overrules Azzarello, Only to Have PBI Suggested Jury Instructions Continue To Seek Azzarello’s Reinstatement (Volume 3 – Updates and Addenda to Proper Suggested Standard Jury Instructions)”. Representatives of PDI and PADC worked closely together on these. PADC members Jim Beck, Bill Ricci, Scott Toomey and Dennis Zienba co-authored them. We ask that you distribute a copy of the instructions to all persons in your firms who handle Product Liability cases for their review and use. Thank you gentlemen for your hard work on these.

Pennsylvania's Superior Court upheld a lower court grant of preliminary objections by the defendant in Seeley v. Caesars Entertainment.

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.