Christin L. Kochel

We obtained summary judgment in a lawsuit arising from an injury suffered at an indoor trampoline park. During the deposition, the plaintiff admitted that there are inherent risks of engaging in trampoline activities, including the risk of being injured. Under the no-duty rule, a defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or insure against risks which are common, frequent, expected and inherent in an activity. In the motion for summary judgment, it was argued that a trampoline park has no duty to protect patrons from the inherent risks of injury when jumping from a trampoline. The court opined that the no-duty rule was implicated and granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants.

We obtained a defense verdict after a bench trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which found the plaintiff did not meet the definition of an insured entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The case arose out of a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was a back seat passenger in a vehicle that was struck by the tortfeasor. After settling his bodily injury claim with the tortfeasor and with the underlying UIM carrier that insured the vehicle he was a passenger in, the plaintiff submitted a UIM claim seeking UIM benefits under his alleged sister’s UIM policy with our client. There was no dispute the plaintiff was living with his “sister” at the time of the accident. Therefore, the only issue was whether the plaintiff could show he was an insured and entitled to coverage by proving he was related to his “sister” by blood, adoption or marriage to meet the definition of a “family member” under the policy. She testified during discovery and at trial that she is not related to the plaintiff by blood, adoption or marriage. As a result of this testimony, the judge found the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof and entered a defense verdict for our client. 

We obtained an order granting our motion to dismiss for failure to allege facts supporting a bad faith claim pursuant to Pennsylvania and federal case law. The case arose out of an uninsured motorist (UM) claim from a motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff and a phantom vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff averred that he sustained various injuries, including to his head, neck, back, both knees and left shoulder. The plaintiff asserted an uninsured motorist benefit claim under his insurer’s policy, with $50,000 in UM benefits and with no stacking. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract and bad faith. After we filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith count for failing to allege facts specific to support such a claim, the court agreed and dismissed the bad faith count with prejudice. Shortly after the decision, the plaintiff settled his UM claim for a little over $8,000.

After the plaintiff was struck as a pedestrian by a motor vehicle, she recovered the bodily injury limits from the driver’s policy and her personal UIM policy. The plaintiff then submitted UIM claims under her daughter’s and granddaughter’s UIM policies. Both insurers denied the claims, citing to the “other insurance” clause in the policies, and claiming the plaintiff was not entitled to stacked coverage under her relatives’ policies as she and her relatives waived stacking under each of their respective policies. After the plaintiff responded to our motion for summary judgment, the court held argument on the motion. The court granted our motion, dismissing all claims against the insurer, including for breach of contract, bad faith and unjust enrichment. In granting the motion, the court adopted our arguments that: (1) the plaintiff and her relatives knowingly waived inter-policy stacking; (2) the “other insurance” clause applies to bar the plaintiff’s claims; and (3) the “other insurance” clause does not violate public policy or the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.