Kim is a strong advocate for her insured and self-insured clients who are facing serious and significant claims. Kim also has extensive experience in monitoring trials for excess carriers and participating in those trials when necessary. As a member of both our Casualty and Appellate Departments, Kim has valuable experience in all aspects of litigation from pleadings through the appellate process. She has participated both as trial counsel and as appellate counsel in multiple trials involving plaintiffs who were catastrophically injured.
Kim represents clients in matters involving premises, product and automobile liability. She has experience defending an elevator/escalator manufacturer against claims of product liability including both design defect, manufacturing defect, as well as claims of negligent inspection/maintenance. Additionally, Kim has handled several construction defect cases in single family homes or condominium complexes involving water intrusion cases resulting in property damage and mold.
Kim understands that strong practice management is a key component to favorable resolutions and positive outcomes for her clients. She is experienced in representing clients in both state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and she is also licensed to practice law in North Carolina and South Carolina. Kim is a strong mentor of young associates at the firm, and she believes that a collaborative approach to cases is an effective way to ensure that new ideas and defenses are being explored to the fullest extent.
Prior to joining the firm, Kim was an associate in the catastrophic loss department of a Philadelphia defense firm. While there, she gained valuable experience handling high-value cases for excess insurers. This experience included independently working up files and preparing cases for trial, often on short notice, in support of her litigation team. Kim also monitored litigation and trials for a variety of insurers. Kim also oversaw and handled cases for her own clients consisting of contractors and building product manufacturers.
Results
Successfully Defended Appeal Sustaining Objections of Improper Venue
We successfully defended the plaintiff’s appeal of a trial court decision sustaining preliminary objections on the grounds of improper venue. This case involved the death of a 19-year-old woman at a university who fell down an 11-story trash chute in an off-campus condominium building. In this mixed negligence and product liability case, we represented two of the multiple defendants, the condominium association and the building management company. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that venue was improper in Philadelphia County and ordered that the case be transferred to Centre County. The plaintiff appealed that decision, and the matter was briefed and argued in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. The Superior Court, in a precedential decision, affirmed the trial court’s decision and found that there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining the preliminary objections. In support of its decision, the Superior Court found that the plaintiff’s arguments were unsupported by Pennsylvania law. The Superior Court, in finding waiver of an issue, quoted directly from the brief prepared by Kim.
Achieved Dismissal of an Appeal of Our Defense Verdict
We won dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal of a defense verdict. Our client issued a professional liability insurance policy to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs were sued for legal malpractice, they notified our client of the suit and asked them to provide counsel to defend the matter. However, the plaintiffs never agreed to counsel proposed by our client. The plaintiffs then proceeded to mediation in the legal malpractice action and settled the matter without notifying our client. As a result, our client denied the plaintiffs’ request for indemnification. The plaintiffs then brought suit against our client for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging they wrongly denied indemnification and failed to provide counsel. The matter went to jury trial from April 8–11, 2024, where we successfully defended our client as the jury returned a defense verdict. The plaintiffs filed post-trial motions and then appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to see a copy of the insurance contract during their deliberations. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal and found that the plaintiffs waived their argument by failing to cite relevant legal authority in their appellate brief. The Superior Court also stated in a footnote that, should the court have reached the issue on appeal, it would have found it meritless because the insurance contract was a central piece of evidence to which the plaintiffs did not object during trial.
