Results

Our defense team successfully obtained an affirmance of the grant of summary judgment in a premises liability case. The plaintiff asserted he tripped and fell in our client’s supermarket and that the fall exacerbated his epilepsy. The discovery period ended without the plaintiff producing an expert opinion that causally connected the medical complaints to the fall. The plaintiff claimed that his treatment for cancer caused his inability to be timely examined and to obtain an expert opinion. After the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery, we moved for summary judgment on the grounds the plaintiff was required to provide an expert opinion linking his fall to his allegedly worsened epilepsy. The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for additional time. At the hearing on the motions, the judge expressed a willingness to consider further extension if the plaintiff had presented some indication that the report would be produced. But in the absence of such an indication, the judge found that fairness to the defense required that summary judgment be granted. On reconsideration, the plaintiff presented a “preliminary summary” from his doctor, which relied on the plaintiff’s wife’s statements to link the epilepsy to the plaintiff’s fall. The trial court denied reconsideration. On appeal to the Appellate Division, the court found no error in the decision of the Law Division judge. The court found that the plaintiff failed to show exceptional circumstances to justify a further extension of discovery and discounted the “preliminary summary” submitted on reconsideration as an improper attempt to expand the record and re-argue the motion.

A FINRA arbitration panel recommended the expungement of a customer complaint relating to allegedly unsuitable investments in oil and gas investments that declined during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

We obtained a dismissal of a consumer fraud class action against our clients, a national firm and its principal, who specialize in identifying and reclaiming lost property for consumers who are unaware that such lost property exists. The plaintiff brought claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and for fraudulent inducement, arguing that the business model was deceptive because consumers could recover their own property without paying for the ease and convenience of having the defendant business work on their behalf.  Not surprisingly, the district court found that the plaintiff’s serial complaints failed to allege anything “more than Defendants’ expertise,” and that there was no factual basis to support the notion that consumers are unduly influenced or misled.  On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, expressly noting that the defendants made no misrepresentation at any time, and the UTPCPL and fraud claims were dismissed as without merit.  DeSimone v. U.S. Claims Servs., Inc., 2020 WL 2556949 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2020), aff’d 2021 WL 1662779 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2021).

We prevailed on a motion for summary judgment related to the duty owed to a minor business invitee in an alleged wrongful death. The plaintiff, the personal representative of the estate of a minor, filed a wrongful death claim alleging the defendant daycare center breached its duty to exercise the reasonable care owed to the minor while he was under the care and supervision of the center. The plaintiff alleged the defendant center’s employees failed to render aid when the minor collapsed, including failing to train its employees, and failing to notify emergency personnel in a timely manner. We successfully argued that the defendant did not breach its duty to exercise reasonable medical care as its employees were CPR certified and immediately responded when an employee witnessed the incident. The mother of the minor arrived immediately after the collapse and held onto him until EMS arrived. The call to the EMS team was made within three minutes of the collapse and the employees reassessed the minor while he was in the mother’s arms and determined the minor was breathing. The minor was breathing until EMS arrived. Sadly, the minor passed away of natural causes. After reviewing the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and hearing our argument, the judge granted the motion for summary judgment, and the case was dismissed.

We obtained summary judgment on behalf of a dentist who sold her practice in an employment and contract claim. The plaintiff, also a dentist, was employed by our client. He claimed his contract automatically renewed, and that he was entitled to two years of pay. The plaintiff also claimed he was entitled to be compensated because our client allegedly prevented him from taking records of patients he was treating. The court accepted our argument that the plaintiff waived the extension of his contract, and that the patient records belonged to the practice and the patients, not the plaintiff.

We won summary judgment for a housing authority in a political subdivision matter in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiff sought over $20 million in damages, alleging the housing authority violated the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminatorily blocking funding for, and financing of, 60 units of project-based affordable housing for homeless veterans, most of whom are disabled. The court had previously awarded summary judgment to our client on all but one claim, but ruled that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the plaintiff’s “reasonable accommodation” claim under the ADA and FHA. In an unusual turn of events, the court recently held that it had erred in not granting our previously filed summary judgment on all claims. It, therefore, dismissed all claims against the housing authority.

We obtained a defense verdict following a non-jury trial. This case was brought under Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act, which governs the meetings of Commonwealth public agencies, including school boards. The plaintiffs were residents of a Centre County school district, and they sued the school board and its president, claiming they violated the Act in the manner by which they conducted public meetings. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged the board failed to state with sufficient specificity during the open portion of its meetings the reasons why it was convening privately in executive session, and because the board did not allow public comment at, or keep minutes of, its executive session meetings. After trial and post-trial briefing, the court, in a written opinion found for the defendants, concluding the board complied with the Act as it routinely and appropriately announced, in general terms, when it was convening in executive session to discuss contract, personnel and non-litigation legal matters. Finally, the trial court found as matter of law that the board was not required to allow public comment at, or keep minutes of, its work sessions because the work sessions are non-voting meetings at which the board does not “deliberate” or take any “official action,” as those terms are specifically defined by the Act.

The declaratory judgment complaint was filed against the landlord that leased three quarries to the insured tenant. The landlord sued its tenant for breach of contract and environmental clean-up costs. The landlord sought coverage as an additional insured to the tenant’s CGL policy. The insurer denied coverage. The court granted our motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer, agreeing that the counterclaims alleged intentional acts that were not occurrences as defined in the policy, nor did the claims fall within the personal or advertising coverage under the policy. The court further held that, even if coverage were found, it is limited to such damage or injury “caused in whole or in part by the insured’s acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on the insured’s behalf in the performance of its ongoing operations for the additional insureds.” In light of this clear language in the policy, it follows that coverage was denied because the counterclaims were based solely on the acts or omissions of the landlord, not on the acts or omissions of the tenant or those acting on its behalf. Lastly, the court agreed that there would be no coverage available to the landlord as exclusions apply.

We obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a civil jury trial in Northampton County, Pa. under COVID restrictions. In this premises liability case, the plaintiff claimed he had slipped on snow and ice on a sidewalk and suffered a comminuted tri-malleolar fracture, requiring two surgeries. At trial, Jason demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to establish that the accident occurred on the property his client maintained as power-of-attorney, or that his client breached any limited duty owed to a licensee. The socially-distanced jury returned its verdict in favor of the defense in one hour.

Our team successfully obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against our client in a marine construction NY Labor Law case pending in Supreme Court Rockland County. The case involved bodily injuries sustained to an employee of our client, which was a sub-subcontractor at the site of the new Mario Cuomo Bridge. The property owner, general contractor and the subcontractor each cross-claimed and/or third-partied our client into the case. They sought contractual and common law indemnity and contribution pursuant to the terms and conditions of the various contracts. We argued, and the court agreed, that since there was no finding of negligence against our client causing the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the indemnification clauses were not implicated. The court found that there was no evidence demonstrating that our client caused in whole or in part the injuries the plaintiff sustained.

We obtained a favorable decision from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, reversing the underlying judge’s decision pertaining to a school district’s entitlement to a credit for wages paid to a school teacher pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The Board granted credits for wages received by the injured worker through the school district’s collective bargaining agreement, allowing offsets against the claimant’s future entitlement to wage loss benefits.

We were successful in dismissing the employer and insurer from a fatal claim as a result of COVID-19 infection. The claimant-widower filed the claim on behalf of his deceased wife, alleging she contracted COVID-19 while working in the capacity of a caretaker for a sick client. We argued that the correct employer for workers’ compensation purposes was the claimant’s client, not the named employer. The Workers’ Compensation Judge agreed and dismissed the named employer and insurer as party defendants.

We successfully prosecuted a termination petition on behalf of a well-known hospital and defended the claimant’s petition for review to expand the nature of the accepted injury. The injury was accepted as a right distal bicep strain, which included a partial tear that resulted in surgery. The claimant asserted the injury should be expanded to also include right carpal tunnel, right elbow sprain and trigger fingers. A detailed cross-examination of the claimant established the complaints referable to right carpal and trigger fingers began six months after the injury, which was corroborated by the claimant’s treating physician’s records. The IME expert, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon with specialized training in hand surgery, had the opportunity to perform a comprehensive physical examination and review the diagnostic studies, post- and pre-injury medical records, and the claimant’s family physician’s records. This review revealed non-work-related carpal tunnel risk factor conditions, including obesity, post-menopausal, non-insulin dependent diabetes and testing for hypothyroidism. It was further argued that the claimant’s medical expert did not have expertise in the surgery involved in the case and failed to review the claimant’s testimony and diagnostic films. Ultimately, the judge found the defense medical expert competent, credible and persuasive.

We received a favorable decision from the Department of Labor (DOL) denying a coal miner’s claim for benefits when the only evidence submitted by his widow was the death certificate listing severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as the primary cause of death. The DOL claims examiner agreed with our position that the death certificate alone, was insufficient evidence to sustain the claimant’s burden of proving that her husband had totally disabling coal workers’ pneumoconiosis during his lifetime. Benefits were denied.

We were successful in obtaining a decision denying a widow’s claim for Federal Black Lung benefits. The deceased miner worked in underground coal mining for 11 years. His lifetime claim for benefits was denied after numerous claim filings and appeals. The widow then sought survivor’s benefits based upon the opinion of her medical expert, who opined that the miner’s death was hastened by coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. The judge rejected the widow’s expert in favor of our expert, who testified the miner’s death was not caused or hastened by pneumoconiosis. The widow requested reconsideration and attempted to submit additional evidence (an additional medical report and 12 medical journal articles) that she had not submitted during the litigation of the claim. The judge again rejected the claim on reconsideration.

The appeal was brought before the Appellate Division, Second Department. The plaintiff was a pedestrian who was struck by a car in the mall parking lot and sued our client, the mall owner. The plaintiff claimed that the parking lot was negligently designed, which led to the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment to the mall, saying that there was no evidence that the parking lot was negligently designed, or that the design led to the accident. A unanimous appellate court affirmed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a newspaper delivery person’s petition for allowance of appeal on March 30, 2021. The claimant filed a claim petition in 2018, alleging that he suffered serious injuries to his right leg after slipping and falling on ice when he was delivering newspapers. The newspaper asserted that the claimant was an independent contractor. The case was bifurcated to determine whether the claimant was an employee. After fully litigating the issue, the Workers’ Compensation Judge found in favor of the newspaper and found that the case was not so different than the seminal case of Johnson v. WCAB (DuBois Courier Express), 631 A.2d 693 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). The Johnson court held that a newspaper carrier was an independent contractor because the newspaper did not exercise substantial control over his activities. The claimant appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board. After hearing argument and reviewing the parties’ briefs, the Board affirmed the judge’s decision and order. The claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, urging the court to consider the evolving nature of the newspaper delivery business in rendering its decision. The court refused to do so and highlighted the lack of control by the newspaper because there was no prohibition on delivering competing newspapers or enlisting a substitute without prior notice or permission. The Commonwealth Court’s decision, which was issued as a non-precedential opinion, is the latest in an unbroken line of similar cases holding that newspaper carriers are independent contractors.  The claimant’s suit ended when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition for allowance of appeal.

Carolyn Bogart was successful in opposing a plaintiff’s appeal against our client, a former fraternity member and social guest. In 2014, the plaintiff was a 20-year-old college student and fraternity member attending a university in New Jersey. After consuming his own alcohol, he fell asleep in a dorm room that was the location of an on-campus party. In the early morning hours, he left the dorm room and proceeded to drive his vehicle, which was unknown to anyone in attendance, as all of the party attendees had either left the party or were asleep when he left. He injured himself in a one-car accident, resulting in a traumatic brain injury and disfigurement claim. In 2016, he filed a lawsuit naming all party attendees and fellow brothers in his fraternity, as well as the university and its employees. Following over 30 depositions, summary judgment was granted to all defendants. The appeal was filed in 2019, and a reported decision issued on March 25, 2021, affirming the underlying Superior Court decision as to our client. The appeal raised questions concerning the scope of the duty owed to an adult not old enough to drink legally, but who nonetheless drank to excess. The appellate panel ruled that the Social Host Liability Act did not apply because it governs liability for third party injuries resulting from the service of alcohol to an of-age adult.

In a case where we represented an insurance broker, a Federal District Judge from the Southern District of West Virginia granted our motion to dismiss and dismissed the suit in its entirety. The plaintiff was a women’s fashion and accessory boutique. The suit arose from a dispute over the plaintiff’s insurance coverage for damages it sustained while being ordered to close by West Virginia’s COVID-19-related orders. The insurance carrier filed a motion to dismiss, and, thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the carrier. The broker filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims plead against it, including bad faith, West Virginia’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty. The court dismissed the counts of bad faith and Unfair Trade Practices Act, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient allegations to support such claims. The court further explained that the plaintiff alleged very few facts specific to the broker and that the allegations plead did not support any unreasonable conduct by the broker, which is required to establish bad faith or deception. For similar reasons, the court held that the plaintiff’s estoppel claim failed. The plaintiff alleged the broker advised that they would have coverage as a result of the COVID-19 orders. The court found that the plaintiff failed to allege how it relied on those representations or how that reliance was detrimental. The alleged representations occurred months after the plaintiff accepted the policy and did not appear to have any impact on the plaintiff’s request for payments from its insurance carrier. Finally, the court explained that the plaintiff failed to identify any West Virginia authority to establish a breach of fiduciary duty against the broker. Regardless, the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege that it requested specific coverage before the broker procured the policy.

Marshall Dennehey and its shareholder, Jonathan E. Kanov, Esq., were successful in a South Florida arbitration representing a prominent Florida real estate developer against construction damage claims brought by a neighboring property’s condominium association. In a final, binding ruling, the arbitrator issued a complete defense verdict, plus an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the developer. The plaintiff condominium association had contended that construction of the developer’s luxury condominium tower caused many areas of their property to be damaged, largely from vibrations/seismic activity during demolition and construction. The plaintiff demanded $1.2 million in damages pursuant to a contract that was entered into by the parties covering the construction activity.   The arbitrator agreed with the defense’s arguments that the “conditions the claimant contends were caused by vibration damage from construction activities are actually age-related deterioration and the result of deferred maintenance. Additionally, there is no evidentiary basis to allocate uncompensated damage associated with the pool and pool deck to the developer, as opposed to preexisting conditions requiring repair and upgrades required for code compliance.” Marshall Dennehey presented highly credible experts and fact witnesses in support of its defense.    Another key to the defense verdict was Marshall Dennehey’s effective cross examination of the claimant’s structural engineering expert on construction vibration/seismic activity data, which formed the crux of their damage claims.

We successfully secured dismissal of a New York no-fault/PIP arbitration commenced by a medical provider against a major insurance carrier for non-payment of medical bills. At the hearing, the carrier argued that the provider was ineligible for reimbursement of the disputed charges because it was not licensed in New York State with the Department of Education and the Department of State when the services at issue were rendered. Under the New York no-fault/PIP regulations, a provider of health care services is not eligible for reimbursement under the insurance law if it fails to meet any applicable state or local licensing requirements. In support of the threshold defense, we submitted copies of printouts from these Departments as conclusive evidence that the provider was not properly licensed in New York State when the services were rendered and was therefore ineligible for New York no-fault reimbursement.

We obtained a summary judgment on behalf of a worker who was injured at a fracking site. The injury occurred when a hose came off of an above-ground storage tank and struck him in the head, resulting in sustained serious and permanent injuries. The plaintiff claimed the general contractor was liable for his injuries because it actively participated on the work site and controlled the unsafe condition which caused the injuries. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the general contractor relinquished complete control over the site to a sub-contractor and, thus, had no control over any unsafe condition which caused the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of our client.

After a masked and socially distanced two-day trial in Bucks County, we obtained a defense verdict in favor of an automotive manufacturer. ​The plaintiff purchased a new 2018 vehicle on March 10, 2018. Approximately one year after the purchase, the plaintiff complained several times that the start/stop function shut off and would not restart. The manufacturer identified the problem and was working on a solution. Meanwhile, the dealership told the plaintiff to turn off the start/stop function until a software update came out. The software update came out in early May of 2019, less than 80 days after the plaintiff’s first complaint. The plaintiff asserted claims under the Pennsylvania Automobile Lemon Law, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Uniform Commercial Code, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law that the vehicle’s repair history was all related to an intermittent and still unrepaired start/stop issue with the car. The defense successfully proved through witness and expert testimony that the vehicle’s mechanical problems were fixed in a timely fashion. The repair work done by the dealership under the warranty was effective and reliable, and the problem was permanently repaired. After trial, the judge requested that each side provide a memorandum with findings of fact and closing arguments. Upon review of same, a ruling was issued in our client’s favor.

We successfully defended a local school district in a special education due process complaint by the parent of a former student who was diagnosed with autism, learning disabilities and ADHD. ​The student had graduated from high school, completed all credits and earned a regular diploma. Yet, the parent claimed that while the student was still attending high school, the school district failed to provide the student with sufficient learning support in reading and math, appropriate social skills training, and adequate vocational and transition services to help the student with life after graduation. Also, the parent claimed the school district failed to take appropriate measures to protect the student from alleged bullying by his peers, including fellow members of the varsity football team. The hearing officer found for the school district on all issues and concluded the school district had provided the student with a free appropriate public education during all times in dispute. The hearing officer also found there was no evidence to suggest the school district had failed to respond appropriately to the parent’s and student’s reports of bullying.

We obtained dismissal of an accounting malpractice claim on preliminary objections in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiffs alleged that their accountant improperly prepared their tax returns—as married filing jointly—and failed to claim business losses, that resulted in an unexpected tax liability being owed. Although the plaintiffs attempted to rely on the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations, the defense successfully argued that the plaintiffs were on notice of the alleged negligence by the time they received the prepared tax returns, and that their failure to investigate potential claims at that time was a failure to exercise due diligence as a matter of law. We further argued that because they were under a duty to investigate earlier, the plaintiffs could not successfully allege that they could not have known of their claims until they hired a tax attorney to investigate. Because the plaintiffs did not bring their negligence claim until more than two years after they received their prepared tax returns, their claims were barred by the Statute of Limitations.

We successfully persuaded the New Jersey Appellate Division to reverse a coverage determination. The original determination had found that the plaintiff was entitled to $500,000 in coverage under her then-boyfriend’s insurance policy, rather than being limited to the $100,000 in her own policy. The Law Division rejected our arguments that the policy did not deem the plaintiff a “covered person” because she was the named insured in her own policy, and rejected the argument that the step-down provision applied. On appeal, the Appellate Division did not agree with us that the Law Division erred in its determination that the plaintiff was a “covered person,” but it did agreed that the step-down provision applied to limit the plaintiff’s recovery to that of her own policy. Cross petitions for review were filed with the New Jersey Supreme Court, which declined to alter the Appellate Division’s decision, resulting in significant savings on the claim for our client.

We obtained an affirmance by the First District Court of Appeal of a defense verdict in a negligent security action. A chef was taking garbage outside of a restaurant when he was shot and killed. The estate sued our client, the owner of the commercial building and parking lot, as well as the defendants involved in the development, design and maintenance of the retail center. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of all defendants. The estate then appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in excluding subsequent remedial measure evidence of the installation of lighting, signs and cameras in the parking lot after the shooting. The First District rejected those arguments, and affirmed the final judgments in favor of the defendants.

The defense prevailed on preliminary objections in Philadelphia County as the court found that the ​case involved a medical malpractice action involving the plaintiff’s allegations of an alleged assault by three patients while the plaintiff was a patient at a behavioral health hospital. In the complaint, the plaintiff pleaded ordinary negligence. Preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer were filed by the defendant, raising immunity under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act since there was no claim of gross negligence. After the preliminary objections were filed, the plaintiff attempted to cure the defect in the original pleading by filing an amended complaint, which added allegations of gross negligence and additional facts, in an attempt to support the claim of gross negligence. We again filed preliminary objections, arguing that the allegation of gross negligence was a new cause of action that was now barred by the statute of limitations. Since the amended complaint was filed more than two years after the event at issue and raised a new claim, the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred the claim. We also argued that the amended complaint failed to provide any factual support for gross negligence or willful misconduct and, therefore, the hospital was immune from suit. Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a response in opposition. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas agreed that the new claim was barred by the statute of limitations and the immunity provisions of the Mental Health Procedures Act, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The hearing was to challenge the Pennsylvania Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Section’s final determination that an injured worker’s shoulder surgery expenses must be paid by the insurance carrier and the employer. We argued that the work-relatedness of the shoulder surgery is currently in dispute, thus barring the Bureau’s attempt to compel payment. We also proffered the argument that due process of the provider remained intact since a challenge to work-relatedness must be adjudicated before a provider has standing to challenge the amount or timeliness of payment. The decision of the court quashed the Bureau’s determination and held that no surgical expenses are payable.

We successfully argued and obtained a full dismissal of an arbitration matter filed against a major insurance company. ​The plaintiff filed it, claiming the insurer owed payment for unpaid medical bills. He alleged the injuries arose from a motor vehicle accident on February 28, 2017, and sought payment for medical treatments provided to him in the amount of $92,043.28. His position was that the entire amount was owed as our client had not reimbursed the medical provider for the services/surgery rendered. The defense countered that the treatment rendered was not medically necessary and presented documentation from an independent medical peer review of the plaintiff’s medical claims record to support that position. The arbitrator heard arguments, concluded that our argument was persuasive, and found in full favor of our client.