Recent News

A Pennsylvania court held it is the insured’s burden to establish that an exception to an exclusion is applicable, thus, placing its claim within the coverage of an insurance policy. For a detailed summary of Jack Troki Dev. Co. v. Robert H.

A Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas found that a driver knowingly operating a motor vehicle while fatigued was sufficient to support the award of punitive damages. For a detailed summary of Livingston v.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently analyzed the circumstances under which an insured is in “possession” of a vehicle for coverage purposes. For a detailed summary of the case of State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. v.

Recently, a Pennsylvania court evaluated a grocery store’s liability for injuries caused by known or obvious conditions.

The Plaintiff was shopping in a grocery store when she tripped and fell on a pallet displaying cases of water in the middle of the frozen

Recently, in an unpublished opinion, a New Jersey appellate court in the case of Beauty Plus Trading Co. Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

There are often many entities potentially at fault for construction accidents. As a result, defendants often seek to join additional defendants that may not have been sued in order to reduce their liability. Joinder is a great strategy for limiting liability, but care must be taken that those sought to be joined actually share some part in causing a single injury.

Plaintiff lawful guest at a rooming house while staying with a tenant there was injured by a loose metal strip on a staircase.

An exclusion in a State Farm Insurance policy barring coverage for accidents occurring while giving rides in exchange for money is not voided by the Pennsylvania Ridesharing Act because the driver was an independent contractor and not an employee of a rideshare operator. See a detailed summary of the case of Harley v. Ribers' Club Cooperative

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued a decision that may help insureds interested in having their cases heard in state court rather than allowing those cases to be removed to Federal Court. In the case, a plaintiff defeated diversity by naming both the insurer and the claims adjuster as defendants. See a detailed summary of the case and the decision in Dominique Ellis v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

As some of our members may be aware, the PADC and PTLA have begun a series of joint meetings with the Philadelphia judiciary. The purpose of these meetings is to provide input to and solicit feedback from the judiciary on various topics of interest both to the bench and the bar.