Source: http://www.torttalk.com/2017/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:25:43+00:00

Document:
In his recent decision in the case of Liu v. Pi Delta Psi Fraternity, No. 3028-CV-2015 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 2, 2016 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas allowed the late joinder of an Additional Defendant over the objection of the Plaintiff.
The court allowed this joinder despite the passage of several months in this wrongful death and negligence case. The court found the interest of judicial economy would be advanced by allowing the late joinder particularly where the case was still in discovery and a volume of information on the claims presented had been secured from the companion criminal cases.
Accordingly, an original Defendant’s Motion to File a Joinder Complaint was granted.
In his recent decision in the case of Yatsonsky v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 3:15-CV-1777 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2016 Munley, J.), Judge James M. Munley granted a carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a bad faith claim.
In this matter, the Plaintiff claimed that the carrier acted in bad faith by assigning an inordinate number of representatives to handle her claim. The insured additionally asserted that the carrier refused to timely pay the full value of the Plaintiff’s loss and instead only provided a number of estimates of payments over a seven (7) month period.
Judge Munley indicated that “it is not bad faith to conduct a thorough investigation into a questionable claim.” The court found that the Plaintiff in this matter failed to present any evidence that the management of the claim was anything other than attempt to further investigate the water damages allegedly sustained at the Plaintiff’s home in order to determine the value of the claim. It was additionally indicated that no expert testimony was offered by the Plaintiff pertaining to the insurer’s investigation.
The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that multiple estimates issued in the claim demonstrated bad faith on the part of the carrier. In so ruling, the court referenced appellate law for the proposition that “subsequent estimates assign(ing) at a higher value of the claim is not ‘clear and convincing’ evidence that the insurer acted in bad faith in arriving at its initial estimate."
I send thanks to Attorney Lee Applebaum, writer of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Insurance Bad Faith Case Law Blog and member of the Philadelphia law firm of Fineman Krekstein & Harris, for bringing this case to my attention.
In its recent decision in the case of Dittman v. UPNC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, No. 971 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Jan. 12, 2017 Olson, J., Stabile, J., and Musammno, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the general question of whether a duty of care exists under the test set forth in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000). The Dittman case involves an action for negligence and breach of contract against a medical center after an alleged data breach with regards to the medical center’s computer systems.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court did not err in finding that the medical center owed no duty to the Plaintiff under Pennsylvania law.
The court also found that the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims in the absence of any allegations that the medical center intended to enter into any contract to protect the Plaintiff’s personal information allegedly exposed during the data breach.
5. The overall public interest in the proposed solution.
As stated, the court found that no duty existed under the circumstances presented in this matter.
In its Opinion, the court also addressed the economic loss doctrine, which provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage. The court upheld the trial court’s decision that the Plaintiff was barred from recovering economic losses as the Plaintiff could not show that the Defendant breached any duty imposed by law.
Anyone wishing to review the Opinion of Judge Olson issued in this matter may click this LINK.
Judge Stabile’s Concurring Statement, in which Judge Olson joined, can be viewed at this LINK.
Judge Musmanno’s dissenting statement can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
In a continuing trend across the Commonwealth, Judge Kimberly McFadden of the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas granted a Plaintiff's Petition to Enforce a Settlement in the case of Williams v. Easton Coach Co., No. C-0048-CV-2015-10186.
The court awarded the Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees after Plaintiff was forced to file a Petition to Enforce a Settlement that was held up by the Defendant's refusal to accept the Plaintiff's proposed Final Settlement Detail Document designed to provide notice to Medicare of the Settlement.
In a detailed Order without Opinion, the Court ordered that the settlement go forth and awarded the Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees caused by the need to file the Petition.
I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this decision to my attention.
Anyone wishing to view the Court's Order along with the Plaintiff's Petition, may click this LINK.
In its recent decision in the case of Newell v. Montana West, 2017 Pa. Super. 15 (Pa. Super. Jan. 19, 2017 Bowes, J., Ott, J., Solano, J.) (Op. by Solano, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that, in a case first impression before this Court, that a business does not have a duty to protect its invitees against the dangers associated with adjoining roadways.
This matter rose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff’s decedent was struck and killed by a car after he left a show at a music venue.
In so ruling, the Newell court relied, in part, on a prior decision of the Commonwealth Court in the case of Allen v. Mellinger, 625 A.2d 1326 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), appeal denied, 644 A.2d 738 (Pa. 1994), in which that court held that the owners of premises abutting state highways are not liable to pedestrians or motorists injured on those highways.
Notably, despite the rule against citing non-precedential Opinions from the Pennsylvania Superior Court, the Newell court referred to one of its non-precedential Opinions involving a case with nearly identical facts.
In upholding the trial court’s decision that no duty was owed to the Plaintiff’s decedent by the adjoining landowner, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.