.

Defense Digest

On the Pulse…Other Notable Achievements

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

RECOGNITION
Congratulations to Brigid Alford (Harrisburg, PA) on her selection to the Central Penn Business Journal’s 2023 Power List for Law! The honorees are some of the Central Pennsylvania region’s most significant, influential, and respected leaders in their fields, as chosen by the CPBJ’s editorial leadership team and readers. 

Mike Turner (Philadelphia, PA) was recently elected a Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Clients Name Marshall Dennehey to the BTI Client Service 100
Marshall Dennehey has earned a coveted spot in the BTI Client Service 100 report, as recommended by corporate counsel. The report is based on research with more than 24,000 buyers of professional services, who rank firms according to performance of 17 activities that drive superior client relationships. Among the report’s findings, Marshall Dennehey was also one of only 50 law firms named to the BTI Midsize Client Service Masters list.

The survey is one of the leading measures of its kind. Rankings are purely research-driven and are not subject to law firm submissions, self-referrals, suggestions, or payments.

“At Marshall Dennehey, superior client service is our number one priority and it is gratifying that BTI’s data reflects that commitment,” said G. Mark Thompson, our firm’s president and CEO. “With every case and file that is entrusted to us, we seek to partner with our clients to understand their needs, effectively resolve their litigation, and exceed expectations. We are grateful to them for this recognition.” 

For more information about the report, please visit https://bticonsulting.com/bti-client-service-a-team. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2023 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Eight attorneys from Marshall Dennehey’s Mount Laurel and Roseland, New Jersey offices have been selected to the 2023 edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers magazine. A Thomson Reuters business, Super Lawyers is a rating service of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected as Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for Super Lawyer Rising Stars. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. A description of the selection methodology can be found at http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html. 

2023 New Jersey Super Lawyer
•    Robert T. Evers (Roseland, NJ): Personal Injury: Medical Malpractice Defense
2023 New Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Stars 
•    Ariel C. Brownstein (Mount Laurel, NJ): Insurance Coverage
•    Christopher J. DiCicco (Mount Laurel, NJ): Transportation/Maritime Litigation. 
•    Ryan Thomas Gannon (Roseland, NJ): Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense. 
•    Heather M. LaBombardi (Roseland, NJ): Medical Malpractice Defense. 
•    Paul W. Lanza (Roseland, NJ): Personal Injury, General, Defense. 
•    Brian A. Rice (Mount Laurel, NJ): Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice Defense. 
•    Brielle K. Winkler (Mount Laurel, NJ): Insurance Coverage. 

 

OTHER NEWS
Jason Banonis (King of Prussia, PA), Pennsylvania Defense Institute’s past president, was recently appointed to Defense Research Institute’s State Legislation and Rules Task Force.

Stephanie Ransom, CLM, assistant office manager of our NYC and Roseland, NJ, offices, has been appointed Vice Chair of the Certification Committee at the Association of Legal Administrators (ALA). Stephanie was appointed to the committee last year and continues to rise in leadership in the national organization. 

Michael Salvati (Philadelphia, PA) has been selected to serve a five-year term on the Civil Jury Instructions Subcommittee of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The subcommittee is charged with maintaining, overseeing and updating the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s standard civil jury instructions as facilitated and published by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. 

 

PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Oner Kiziltan (Fort Lauderdale, FL) authored the article, “Proving Insurance Fraud: Is Metadata the Missing Piece of the SIU Puzzle?” in the March 24, 2023, edition of Insurance Journal. You can read his article here.

Jennifer Meyers’ (Westchester, NJ) article “When Is It Too Late to Change Your Theory of the Case?” was published in the March 10, 2023, issue of The New York Law Journal. You can read her article here.

Michael Salvati (Philadelphia, PA) published the article “A Two-Pronged Test Becomes One - Why the Superior Court’s Venue Decision in Hangey Departs from Decades of Prior Precedent,” appearing in the January/February 2023 issue of The Pennsylvania Lawyer. The article attracted the attention of Law360, who republished it (with permission), under the title, “Pa. Supreme Court Must Defend Established Venue Standard.” You can read his article here.  

Ray Michaud’s (Mount Laure, NJ) article “Develop the Helpful Habits to Ward Off Litigation” was published in the Spring 2023 issue of Pennsylvania CPA Journal, the publication of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants. You can read Ray’s article here.  

Lauren Purcell and Patrick Reilly (Pittsburgh, PA) teamed up to author “Protecting Your Bar from Claims in the Wake of ‘Mortimer’,” which was published on February 15, 2023, in The Legal Intelligencer. You can read their article here.  

Dana Gittleman’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “4 Terms to Avoid When Advertising Your Insurance Agency,” was published on IndependentAgent.com on February 9, 2023. Click here to read her article.  

Steven Christman’s and Fabrice Michel’s (New York, NY) article “Prejudgment Interest Accruing from Date of Accident: What Will This Mean for Resident, Courts?” was published in the April 13, 2023, issue of New York Law Journal. You can read their article here. 

Hunter McMullin’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Potential Clarity on Pennsylvania’s Murky Products Liability Landscape,” was published in the April 6, 2023, edition of The Legal Intelligencer. You can read his article here.  

Michele Punturi’s (Philadelphia, PA) article “Why Contest Mental Health Claims in Workers’ Comp When You Can Prevent Them to Begin With?” was published in the March 28, 2023, issue of Risk & Insurance. You can read Michele’s article here.

Paul Laughlin (King of Prussia, PA) authored the article “Choosing a Mediator for Your Medical Malpractice Case: One Size Does Not Fit All,” appearing in The Legal Intelligencer’s Medical Malpractice Supplement, published on March 28, 2023. You can read the article here.  

William Murphy’s (Roseland, NJ) article “Under the Influence of the Intoxication Defense: Differing State Law Can Affect Workers’ Compensation Claims for Workplace Injuries” was published in the April 2023 edition of CLM Magazine. You can read his article here. 

Greg Graham and Carly Edman (Pittsburgh, PA) authored the article “Retooling the Client Engagement Letter to Minimize Liability Claim Exposure,” appearing in the March 23, 2023, edition of PLUS Blog, the blog of the Professional Liability Underwriting Society. You may read the article at this link.  

Josh Byrne and Alesia Sulock (Philadelphia, PA) authored the article, “When Disciplinary Counsel Knocks on Your Door, How Do You Respond?” in the March 20, 2023, issue of The Legal Intelligencer. Read the article here.  

“Top Ten Ways an Insurance Broker Can Avoid Liability,” by Estelle Kokales McGrath (Pittsburgh, PA) was published by the National Association of Professional Agents on March 1, 2023. You can read her article here.

 

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Matthew Keris (Scranton, PA) presented “Radonda Vaught Lessons: The Ethical Challenges of Managing Dual Legal Investigations” at the DRI Medical Liability and Health Care Law Seminar. Matthew also presented the American Legal Connections webinar “Best Practices for an Audit Trail Expert Deposition.”

Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ) participated in two seminars at the annual Insurance Fraud Management Conference. Jeff moderated “Legal Update Panel” and participated in “Identification of SIU Suggested Best Practices.”

Raymond Michaud (Mount Laurel, NJ) spoke at the New Jersey Chapter of the American Water Works Association Annual Conference. His presentation, “Case Studies in Ethics for Engineers,” focused on the water crisis in Flint, Michigan and the ethical behaviors of engineers.

Jon Cross (Philadelphia, PA), Christopher DiCicco (Mount Laurel, NJ), Jay Hamad (New York, NY), A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL), David Shannon (Philadelphia, PA), Robin Snyder (Philadelphia, PA), and Sunny Sparano (Roseland, NJ) recently participated in ILG 360° London Annual Conference 2023. Our attorneys presented practice area-specific webinars in areas such as concussion litigation, aviation, cyber risk and systemic threats, changes in the construction industry, marine cargo claims and claims inflation in property and casualty litigation. All of our presenters guided participants through case studies and interactive sessions, addressing key issues of importance to claims professionals and insurance industry personnel. For background, Marshall Dennehey is a founding member of Insurance Law Global (ILG), a multi-jurisdictional network of like-minded independent insurance defense law firms. The network is committed to helping clients respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by globalization and the increasingly diverse needs of the insurance industry. You can watch the conference in its entirety here: https://www.ourevent.tv/ilg23. 

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) spoke at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s annual Civil Litigation Update. John spoke on notable case law and procedural rule developments over the past year.

Brooks Foland (Harrisburg, PA) presented “The Mediator’s Role as Convener” at the Pennsylvania Council of Mediators 35th Annual Conference in Harrisburg.

Janice Merrill (Orlando, FL) presented at the Orlando Health Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society meeting on the “Pitfalls of Pressure Injury Litigation.”

Mohamad Bakry (Philadelphia, PA) co-presented “Power Jackpots and Life Care Plans: What’s the Difference and What Can Be Done About It?” at the FDCC winter meeting. This panel discussed a survey of trends that defense counsel are seeing in life care plans, assessed techniques for challenging the underlying assumptions of those plans, and explained how to defend against these huge damages claims. 

Thomas Brown (Orlando, FL) discussed carshare and rideshare liability issues and best practices for defending against claims at the Florida Defense Lawyers Association’s webinar.

Jack Delany (Philadelphia, PA), an adjunct professor at Temple Law School’s Trial Advocacy Program LLM, presented “Nuts and Bolts Trial Strategy in a Post-COVID, Social Unrest, and Nuclear Verdict Time Period.”

Harold Moroknek (Westchester, NY) and Preston Holmes (Westchester, NJ) presented “What To Do When Stopped by Law Enforcement” at the American Bus Association, The Bus Industry Safety Council meeting.

A.C. Nash (Fort Lauderdale, FL) office joined a panel at the International Association of Professional Security Consultants (IAPSC) conference, where he discussed “Testimony from Intake to Trial.” The presentation took security experts through the stages of a new case, addressing intake, investigation, formulating opinions, and testifying at trial. 

Elizabeth Ferguson (Jacksonville, FL) presented “Can We Have It All?” at the Florida Bar Construction Law Institute’s Women in Construction Networking Breakfast.

John Hare (Philadelphia, PA) presented a seminar on civil litigation developments for the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform. The seminar was held at the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association facility in Harrisburg and was attended by representatives from more than forty insurance carriers and corporations.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA) presented “Untying Tangled Titles – Recognizing How Property Title Issues Drive Fraud” at the 2023 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference.

James Cole (Philadelphia, PA), Jeffrey Rapattoni (Mount Laurel, NJ), and Christopher Woodward (Harrisburg, PA) were featured speakers at the 2023 Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Conference. Presented by IASIU (Delaware Valley and Greater Pittsburgh Chapters) and the Pennsylvania Insurance Fraud Prevention Authority (IFPA), Jim and Chris presented “Untying Tangled Titles – How Property Insurance Drives Fraud,” and Jeff presented a “Legal Update.” 

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias (Mount Laurel, NJ) presented at the Camden County Bar Association’s Civil Practice Update. Jack presented on various updates pertaining to Legal Malpractice Liability and Expert Strategy Parameters in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Accutane. Jeremy presented on recent updates pertaining to the Affidavit of Merit Statute and case application and also moderated this panel discussion, which included various members of the bench and the bar in Camden County. The seminar was well attended and is considered a seminal event within the Camden County Bar Association. 

Josh J.T. Byrne (Philadelphia, PA) participated in the presentation “Ethics and Malpractice Avoidance” at the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Mid-Year Meeting along with Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy and Michael Furlong of CNA. Josh also presented at the Philadelphia Bar Association’s Bench-Bar meeting on “Practicing with Integrity” with Chief Disciplinary Counsel Thomas Farrell, Judge Tiffany Palmer, and Judicial Candidate Kay Yu.

Shannon Fellin and Katherine Bavoso (Harrisburg, PA) were speakers at the Workers’ Compensation Bench and Bar Best Practices 2023 forum. They joined a panel of distinguished industry professionals to discuss “Ethics, Professionalism, Civility, & Culture.” 

Michele Punturi (Philadelphia, PA) participated in a panel discussion at the CLM Annual Conference. The panel focused on increasing diversity and sustaining organizational change in the claims industry. In “Building a Better Business, Achieving a More Diverse Future,” the panelists talked about how diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts have taken center stage in the workplace and identified emerging recruitment and retention strategies that employers can utilize to achieve a more diverse future. The session also included an analysis of effective ways to maintain diverse vendor teams while building stronger partnerships in claims handling in the legal industry. 

Frank Wickersham (King of Prussia, PA) presented at the 19th Annual Worker’s Compensation Insurance ExecuSummit. In his “State of the Union - Medical Marijuana,” Frank discussed the ongoing efforts around the nation, via lawsuits and legislation, to obtain clarity on medical marijuana coverage for injured workers. Frank also co-presented “One Less Zombie in the Workers’ Compensation Apocalypse” at the CLM 2023 Workers’ Compensation, Casualty & Risk Management Conference. This seminar addressed strategies for dealing with the relentless issue of opioids and the growing reliance on cannabis in workers’ compensation.

Heather Carbone (Jacksonville, FL) was the keynote speaker at the 2023 International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) Annual Southeast Florida Workers’ Compensation Claims Conference. Heather’s topic was “Talking About Generations.”
 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

Result

Federal Statute Declared Constitutional

In this products liability case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Superior Court and upheld the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which resulted in judgment as a matter of law for the defendant manufacturer.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law.