John J. Hare

Significant Representative Matters

• In a case in which John acted as amicus curiae counsel for The Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and refused to expand the duties of Pennsylvania physicians to inform third parties of the risks associated with communicable diseases.  Seebold v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 2012 Pa. LEXIS 3011 (December 28, 2012).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court's transfer of venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the first such decision by a Pennsylvania appellate court in nine years.  Stoner v. Penn Kleen, 2012 Pa. Super. 218, 2012 Pa.Super. LEXIS 2932 (Pa. Super. 2012).

• In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a putative class action against John's client, a national manufacturer of automobile anti-theft systems, and held that the client was not liable under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, which permits a broad array of damages for violations of any federal or state consumer protection law, because its warranty did not violate any clearly established right under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  McGarvey v. Penske Auto Group, Inc., et al., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 13450 (July 2, 2012).

• In the first Pennsylvania decision addressing the recoverability of attorneys' fees on a jury's award of future medical expenses under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, the Court held that such fees are paid out of, not in addition to, the award of future medical expenses, after reduction to present value.  This ruling substantially reduced the value of a claim against John's client.  Sayler v. Skutches, 2012 PA Super 23, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25 (Pa. Super., February 6, 2012).

• The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court vacated a large judgment against John's client, a township, and remanded for the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on the basis that the trial evidence failed to demonstrate that the township was responsible for the decedent's death.  Rahman v. Falls Township, 2012 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 126 (Pa.Cmwlth., January 6, 2012).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, vacating a large verdict against John's client, a mutual insurance company, on the basis that the insurer's conduct in handling a fire damage claim did not constitute bad faith as a matter of law.  Edkin v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Co., 1331 MDA 2009 (Pa. Super., February 4, 2011).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict and remanded for a new trial in favor of John's client, one of the world's leading construction firms, in its claim for contractual indemnity. Skanska USA Buildings, Inc. v. Gory Mechanical Contractors, 345 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super., January 19, 2011).

• In a decision reconciling two conflicting lines of cases, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling that John's client, an insurer, had a duty to defend a lawsuit claiming that the intoxicated insured assaulted and attempted to kill the plaintiff before taking his own life.  The central issue in the case was whether and to what extent allegations of intoxication can convert otherwise intentional conduct into an accident for purposes of securing insurance coverage.  Addressing "tension" in the existing case law, the Court reasoned in its published decision  that Pennsylvania public policy forbids the extension of insurance coverage to obviously intentional conduct and that allegations of intoxication can create a duty to defend only when the allegations indicate that the insured was so intoxicated that he lacked conscious awareness of his actions or lacked the ability to form intent.  State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v. The Estate of Thomas Mehlman,  589 F.3d 105 (3d Cir., 2009).

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of all claims against John's client, a law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Seawright v. Greenberg, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the re-entry of judgment in favor of John's client, a nonprofit corporation that had entered into an agreement to buy real estate, on the basis that the trial court had erroneously stricken the judgment. Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 923 A.2d 482 (Pa. Super. 2007).

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against John's clients, attorneys and their law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary element of causation. My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a large verdict against John's client and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations.  Urbach v. Kentile, Inc., et al., 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1351 (Pa. 2007).

• In the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3-1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claim. O'Hara v. Randall, 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005).

• The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, which entered judgment for John's client, that the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Phillies owed no duty to a spectator at a baseball game who was partially blinded when hit by a foul ball.  Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to retry her claims against John's client, a hospital. Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004).

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights claims on the basis that John's clients, county officials, were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to retry her claims against John's client, a hospital. Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004).

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights claims on the basis that John's clients, county officials, were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003).

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court and ruled that an ordinance passed by John's client, a Pennsylvania municipality, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al, 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003).

• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed two lower courts and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a professional corporation, on the basis that the plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur theory of liability was invalid as a matter of law. Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003).

• In the first appellate decision interpreting and applying Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a.1), Pennsylvania's tort reform measure involving venue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against John's client, a physician, must be transferred out of Philadelphia County. Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003).

• The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability claims against John's client, a manufacturer of scaffolding equipment, after a jury found that the manufacturer was not responsible for the construction accident that injured the plaintiff. Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing, 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002).

• The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a hospital, on the basis that, although the plaintiff had adduced some evidence to support her claims, the evidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002).

Published Works

• Keystone of Justice: A History of the Pennsylvania Superior Court; 1895-1995, co-author with Hon. P. Tamilia, Superior Court of Pa., Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, January 2000

• "Protecting Their Own; The Power Of Administrative Agencies To Enforce Regulations Through Litigation," Defense Digest, May, 2003

• "The Legal Doctrines Of Waiver And Estoppel May Not Be Used To Expand The Scope Of An Insurance Policy To Cover Excluded Risks," Defense Digest, September, 2002

• "Defining 'Beneficiary' In A Wrongful Death Action Under The Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act," Defense Digest, August, 2001

• "Pennsylvania Appellate News," Defense Digest, 2001-2008

• "Note, Freedom of the Press and the Right to a Fair Trial in Pennsylvania," 30 Duq.L.Rev. 760, 1992

Representative Cases

• Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003)

• Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al, 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003)

• Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003)

• Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing, 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002)

• O'Hara v. Randall, 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005)

• Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003)

• Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004)

• Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002)

• Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)

• Seawright v. Greenberg, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007)

• Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 2007 PA Super 119 (Pa. Super. 2007)

• My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006)

Education

• Duquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1993 J.D.

  Law Review: Duquesne Law Review, Senior Editor

• Princeton University, 1999 Completed Ph.D. Coursework, Legal History

• University of California, Berkeley, 1998 M.A., Legal History

• Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 1990 B.A.

  Honors: magna cum laude

Past Employment Positions

• Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Hon. Patrick R. Tamilia, Law Clerk, 1994 -1997

• U.S. Marines, 1986 - 1990