Defense Digest

Marshall Dennehey Is Happy To Celebrate Our Recent Appellate Victories

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court overturn a $1.75 million verdict for the plaintiff and remand the case for a new trial on the basis that the question of whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of limitations was improperly withheld from the jury. Urbach v. Flintkote Co, 2387 & 2423 EDA 2005 (Pa. Super., October 31, 2006).

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirm the entry of a nonsuit for an asbestos manufacturer based upon the plaintiff's failure to establish the identity of the manufacturer of the product to which he was exposed. The jury had returned a verdict of $1 million during the damages phase of the reverse bifurcated trial. Fessler v. Rockbestos Corp., 3145 EDA 2005 (Pa. Super., November 17, 2006).

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court reject the plaintiffs' appeal in a case where they claimed serious injuries from an auto accident but were awarded only $15,000 and $2,500, respectively. The Superior Court upheld the small verdicts on the basis that the plaintiffs' credibility was severely compromised at trial and the amount of the verdicts reflected the plaintiffs' deceptive testimony regarding the scope of their injuries. Ardon v. Quiros, 2847 EDA 2005 (Pa. Super., November 16, 2006).

Walt Kawalec (Cherry Hill, NJ) succeeded in convincing the New Jersey Appellate Division to affirm the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against the safety engineer on a bridge renovation project because the plaintiff failed to timely file his complaint under New Jersey's fictitious-party practice rules.  Hurless v. Delaware River Port Authority, A-3778-04T1 (App. Div. November 30, 2006).

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having the Pennsylvania Superior Court reverse the trial court and hold that the defendant should have been permitted to segregate private information before producing its employees' personnel files pursuant to the plaintiff's discovery request. Haytko v. Old Orchard Healthcare, et al., 251 EDA 2006 (Pa. Super., December 6, 2006).

Walt Kawalec (Cherry Hill, NJ) succeeded in convincing the New Jersey Appellate Division to reverse the dismissal of a multi-million dollar insurance fraud complaint filed against a medical provider. The trial judge held that the claim was barred by the entire controversy doctrine in light of the provider's affirmative action against the insurer in a different county. The appellate court found that the nature of the claims raised in the two cases, as well as the text of the applicable rule, was such that the entire controversy doctrine did not apply, reversing the judgment and reinstating the complaint. Allstate v. Cherry Hill Pain and Rehab, 389 N.J. Super. 130; 911 A.2d 493 (App. Div., December 7, 2006).

Walt Kawalec (Cherry Hill, NJ) succeeded in having the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirm the summary judgment granted to the plaintiff, a former police officer who sued his former employer, alleging a disparate-treatment ethnic discrimination claim, an unlawful retaliation claim stemming from complaints he made to the Human Rights Commission, and a claim that his First Amendment speech rights were violated when he was disciplined for speaking to a reporter about actions by a police official.  The court found that there was simply no merit to the plaintiff's claims. Santiago v. City of York, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 31538 (3d Cir., December 21, 2006).

Walt Kawalec (Cherry Hill, NJ) succeeded in having the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirm a grant of summary judgment in a police compression-asphyxia case. The appeals court found that the district court failed to analyze the case in the proper manner but that, in its independent review of the record, judgment in the defendant's favor was warranted.  It found that the application of force did not constitute excessive force given all of the facts of the case, nor were any of the plaintiff's other arguments meritorious. Bornstad v. Honey Brook Township,  2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 218 (3d Cir., January 5, 2007).

 Walt Kawalec (Cherry Hill, NJ) succeeded in having the Appellate Division affirm the decision of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, which found no probable cause to credit the plaintiff's allegation against his employer that he was fired on account of his race. Because there was no substantive support for his claim in either the facts or the law, the Appellate Division affirmed the Order dismissing the Civil Rights Complaint. Hayes v. Hughes Enterprises, A-4684-05T3 (App. Div. January 22, 2007).