.

Case Law Alerts

Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint to Allege Spoliation Based Upon Failure to Preserve Dashboard Camera Made After Amendment Deadline.

Ortiz v. Stevenson, 2023 WL 6619674, No. 21-cv-17066 (EP) (ESK) (D. N.J. Oct. 11, 2023)

January 1, 2024

The present issue involves a plaintiff’s attempt to amend the complaint to allege spoliation of a dashboard camera. The plaintiff was well past the time to amend without leave of the court. While the dashboard camera could have provided newly-discovered information warranting amended pleadings, defense counsel successfully argued that the plaintiff’s failure to raise this issue to the court for eleven months after learning of the issue—during the defendant’s deposition—was without excuse. The court denied the plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add the spoliation charge.

 

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent 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. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Firm Highlights

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

News

Marshall Dennehey Shareholders Recognized as Florida Trend Legal Elite Notable Women Leaders in Law

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

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

Mental Health Records Shielded from Discovery in Personal Injury Action

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sought damages for physical injuries allegedly sustained in an April 11, 2024 motor vehicle accident. During her deposition, Plaintiff testified that the accident aggravated preexisting injuries for which she had previously treated at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and that she also received treatment at Moses Taylor Hospital after the accident. Defendants subpoenaed records from both facilities, excluding mental health and psychiatric records, while Plaintiff objected on the ground that protected mental health information could be disclosed. Moreck v. Karns, No. 2025 CV 1140 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Lackawanna Cnty.), The Court granted Defendants’ motion to overrule Plaintiff’s objections to the subpoenas, except as to records protected by the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA). The Court held that Plaintiff’s medical records from both hospitals were relevant and discoverable because her deposition testimony placed those physical injuries at issue, but that she had not placed her mental health condition at issue and therefore had not waived MHPA confidentiality protections. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant Karns to provide overdue discovery responses within twenty days, but denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel against Black Ops, while warning that Black Ops could be bound by its discovery responses and face consequences if it later attempted to rely on contrary information.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

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

Constructive Notice of Dangerous Intersection Presents Jury Question

In an action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff alleged that a dangerous condition at an intersection in Bethel Township contributed to a December 1, 2020 collision between a sedan and a tractor-trailer. Leger claimed the Township negligently placed and maintained a stop sign on Shirksville Road where sight distance was allegedly only 300 feet rather than the required 500 feet, and that the Township had actual or constructive notice of this hazardous condition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, concluding Leger failed to present sufficient evidence of notice. Leger v. Martin, No. 253 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 19, 2026). The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding that actual or constructive notice under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act is generally a question of fact for the jury. The Court found Leger produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue regarding constructive notice, including evidence that the Township was responsible for the roadway and stop sign, regularly inspected and maintained the sign, had replaced it before the accident, and, according to expert testimony, should have recognized the inadequate sight distance through reasonable inspection. The Court further held that evidence of prior similar crashes at the intersection supported an inference of constructive notice, making summary judgment inappropriate because reasonable minds could differ as to whether the dangerous condition was apparent and should have been discovered by the Township.

Thought Leadership

Punitive Damages Claim Survives in Distracted Driving Case

In a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff alleged he sustained serious injuries, including a left knee injury requiring surgery, when Defendant Snook rear-ended his stopped vehicle in a construction zone on Route 33 in Monroe County. The complaint asserted that Snook, while operating a vehicle owned by the corporate defendants and acting within the scope of his employment, was traveling at an excessive speed, following too closely, and texting while driving, resulting in the collision. Maro v. Snook, No. 1805 CV 2025 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Monroe Cnty.), The Monroe County Court of Common Pleas overruled Defendants’ preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the punitive damages claims and challenging the specificity of the pleadings. The Court held that allegations that Snook was speeding and texting while driving in a construction zone were sufficient to support an inference of reckless indifference to the rights of others, making punitive damages legally viable at the pleading stage. Citing Monroe v. CBH20 LP, the Court noted that recklessness may be averred generally and that Snook’s state of mind must be developed through discovery. The Court also found the complaint adequately pled vicarious liability against the corporate defendants and provided sufficient factual specificity regarding the alleged negligence, statutory violations, and agency relationship to withstand preliminary objections.

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter