On the Pulse…Defense Verdicts and Successful Litigation Results*

HEALTH CARE DEPARTMENT

Gary Samms (King of Prussia, PA/Philadelphia, PA) and Shane Haselbarth (Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in partially dismantling a complex claim against a major health care client. The family of a former in-patient resident who died as a result of complications from the Covid-19 virus filed suit, raising claims that the patient was sexually assaulted while in the care of the hospital and a subsidiary ambulance company. Asked to join the defense team shortly before trial, Gary effectively discredited the plaintiff’s witnesses throughout the plaintiff’s case-in-chief. Then at the nonsuit stage, Gary wholly extricated his client—sealing off any exposure to liability for the large, corporate parent company. Following the jury’s $3.5 million verdict against the remaining defendants, Shane was engaged as appellate counsel and succeeded in further winnowing the liability exposure. He convinced the trial judge to: (1) deny the plaintiff’s request to reinstate the punitive damages claim based on the trial record; (2) grant a partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict on one claim, lopping a full $700,000 off the jury’s verdict; and (3) outright deny the plaintiff’s motion for delay damages, which had sought to add $742,000 to the jury’s verdict. All in all, a terrific result from a hard-fought trial.

Robert Aldrich (Scranton, PA) obtained a defense verdict in binding arbitration on behalf of a nursing home client. The plaintiff alleged that the nursing staff provided inadequate pressure-reducing devices and negligently cared for his lower extremity, allegedly resulting in a below-the-knee amputation and permanent and total disability. Rob defended the case by establishing that, not only did the nursing staff treat the resident in accordance with the standard of care but, also, the resident’s below-the-knee amputation was caused by the resident’s vascular conditions and comorbidities, not by any alleged actions and/or inactions of the nursing home staff. After a lengthy arbitration, the arbitrator ultimately found in favor of the defense. 

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY DEPARTMENT

Christopher Conrad and Coryn Hubbert (both of Harrisburg, PA) obtained summary judgment for a homeowners’ association. The plaintiff owned an apartment in a planned community and sought to drill a hole through the exterior wall of the building to vent a HVAC unit. The HOA denied his request, and the plaintiff asserted claims of negligence and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealings, alleging that the HOA treated him unfairly from other members by denying his request. Despite providing numerous photos of other holes through the exterior wall of the building, the plaintiff admitted during his deposition that the did not know whether the HOA had ever permitted another unit owner to drill a hole in the exterior wall. Chris and Coryn successfully argued that the plaintiff could not put forth any evidence demonstrating unfair treatment or that the request had been denied in bad faith. The plaintiff’s lawsuit also included identical claims against the property management company of the building, and additional claims for breach of fiduciary duty, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which were dismissed previously through preliminary objections.

Trish Monahan (Pittsburgh, PA) and Audrey Copeland (King of Prussia, PA) were successful in having the Commonwealth Court affirm summary judgment in a breach of contract/unjust enrichment matter. The plaintiff, a retired Chief of Police, sought an Act 600 Pension Plan as his contract stated. However, the Borough had never enacted an Act 600 Pension Plan, and the reference to an Act 600 Pension Plan in the plaintiff’s contract was a scrivener’s error and unenforceable. The Borough had a different pension plan in place that provided for lower benefits. The plaintiff also claimed unjust enrichment and entitlement to post-retirement paid sick and comp days. The Commonwealth Court held that the contract did not provide a monetary amount for said benefits and affirmed summary judgment on that basis. This was the second time this case went before the Commonwealth Court. The first time was an interlocutory appeal and this time a direct appeal from a final order of summary judgment.

Trish Monahan (Pittsburgh, PA) won summary judgment in a discrimination in public accommodation action. The plaintiff claimed that she was denied a hotel room because of her race and that someone from the front desk called her the “n” word. The plaintiff had made a high six-figure demand, and the defense offered $1,500 to settle. 

William McPartland and Rachel Insalaco (both of Scranton, PA) successfully convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County’s grant of our preliminary objections and dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint in mandamus. In its complaint in mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas, the plaintiff, a solar company, argued that a Township’s letter denying its plan and application for the development of solar panels was insufficient under the Municipalities Planning Code, thus entitling it to a deemed approval of its plan. We had successfully filed preliminary objections to the complaint on the grounds that the Township’s letter, which identified the plan’s defects with specific reference to provisions of the Municipal Planning Code that had not been satisfied, was sufficient under Section 508 of the Municipal Planning Code. This section requires that, when a municipality denies an application for approval of a development plan, “the decision shall specify the defects found in the application and describe the requirements which have not been met and shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statute or ordinance relied upon.” 53 P.S. Section 10508(2). The plaintiff appealed the decision, and we attended oral argument before the Commonwealth Court, following which the court affirmed the decision of the lower court on the same grounds. 

D. Connor Warner (Philadelphia, PA) successfully had a defamation matter against an American Legion Post and certain of its members dismissed. According to the plaintiff, he joined the American Legion Post in 2022 and was allegedly asked by the defendant to address mismanagement within the Post. The plaintiff supposedly found unpaid invoices, canceled insurance policies, and non-compliance with Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) and gaming license regulations. He fired the restaurant manager, processed payroll, secured new insurance, and attempted to renew the gaming license at the defendants’ direction. When the plaintiff urged compliance and stated he would cooperate with a potential PLCB investigation, he alleges that the defendants threatened him and accused him of misconduct, such as showing a video of a sexually explicit nature to another Post employee, failing to pay wages/vendors, making threats, removing a laptop, allowing unauthorized payroll access, and making unauthorized purchases. After the Post held a formal executive session regarding the plaintiff’s conduct, he was permanently suspended from the Legion. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit in York County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that the various statements regarding his misconduct were false. The case was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to comply with two discovery orders and a subpoena for his counsel’s deposition (who is also the plaintiff’s wife), prompting the court to impose sanctions, dismissing the case.

Timothy Jaeger (Roseland, NJ) obtained summary judgment for his clients, a school district and its board of education, in a construction injury case. The school district hired a paving contractor to install a drainage pipe at one of its schools and to perform paving work at a number of its schools. The paving contractor had to excavate a trench to install the pipe. The plaintiff, an employee of the paving contractor, was working in the trench installing the pipe when the trench collapsed around him, trapping him up to his head and requiring that he be extricated by first responders. According to the plaintiff, the trench collapse was affected by a condition of the property that caused water to enter and destabilize the trench. He alleged that the school district was liable because the existence of the water was a dangerous condition of the property and, as the property owner, the district was negligent in failing to properly supervise the work and provide for the safety of the workers. The school district’s superintendent had visited the site on the morning of the incident, observed mud in the trench, and said to the paving contractor that he should not let anyone work in the trench. In our summary judgment motion, Tim argued that the school district did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff because the contractor was, by contract, in charge of the means and methods of its work and was contractually obligated to provide for the safety of its work and its workers. The court granted summary judgment to the school district, agreeing that it did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The school district was not an expert in excavation or trenching and hired the paving contractor as the expert to perform such work. The court found that the plaintiff was injured as the result of a risk that was inherent to the trenching work being performed by the contractor; therefore, the school district did not owe a duty of care. 

William McPartland and Rachel Insalaco (both of Scranton, PA) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a school district. The plaintiff—who was not a student at the school district—asserted causes of action for negligence and Title IX violations against the school district based on his sexual abuse by a teacher within the district who had adopted him. The court determined there was no evidence that any appropriate person within the school district had knowledge of the plaintiff’s abuse, which occurred exclusively off school grounds and within the teacher’s home. The court further determined that unsubstantiated rumors about the teacher within the district were insufficient to establish actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s sexual abuse. As such, the court held that the plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support his Title IX claim or to overcome the school district’s immunity from his negligence claim. The court granted our motion for summary judgment in its entirety.  

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT

Anthony Natale (King of Prussia, PA) received dismissal of claim, review, and reinstatement petitions. The claimant sustained a shoulder injury during the course and scope of employment. She returned to work with the employer thereafter at a modified-duty job and then abandoned the job for a position with an alternate employer. Thereafter, she filed claim, reinstatement, and review petitions, alleging injuries to her opposite shoulder prior to her job abandonment. The parties submitted competing medical expert evidence, and the court found that claimant did not sustain a new work injury. All petitions were dismissed.

A. Judd Woytek (King of Prussia, PA) received a decision order from the U.S. Department of Labor denying the claimant’s claim for Federal Black Lung benefits. This was the miner’s fifth attempt to be awarded Federal Black Lung benefits. He was credited with 8.9 years of qualifying coal mine employment, and he was also found to have coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. However, the evidence failed to show that his pneumoconiosis was disabling or would prohibit him from performing his last coal mine employment. Therefore, benefits were once again denied.

Michael Duffy (King of Prussia, PA) received an opinion from the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board that affirmed the decision that granted our termination petition. The employer had accepted an “upper back area” injury through a Notice of Compensation Payable. Prior to issuing the NCP, the employer secured an IME, where the doctor ultimately opined that the claimant was fully recovered from a lumbar sprain. The workers’ compensation judge found that the claimant was fully recovered from the work injury based upon the credible opinions of the employer’s medical expert. The judge also rejected the claimant’s testimony and his expert’s testimony. The claimant appealed, arguing the termination was improper as the IME occurred before the NCP was issued; therefore, the change in condition needed to occur after the NCP. Additionally, the claimant argued the termination was improper as the IME doctor found a different injury than the injury noted on the NCP. The Appeal Board opined that the employer sustained its burden of proof as its expert’s testimony constituted substantial evidence, sufficient in nature to meet its burden of proof. The Appeal Board further found that since the employer was not disputing that an injury occurred, it was not attempting to re-litigate whether the claimant sustained a work injury. Rather, it was disputing whether the claimant was still disabled. The Appeal Board further opined that the claimant’s expert evaluated the whole back and that the credible evidence revealed the claimant was fully recovered.

Benjamin Durstein (Wilmington, DE) was successful in obtaining the dismissal of a petition to determine compensation due that asserted a different date of injury. The Industrial Accident Board denied the claimant’s motion to amend a petition to reflect a different date of loss because the amendment was made more than two years from the date of the alleged work accident. The pending petition was dismissed, and any new petition with the “corrected” date of loss was barred by the statute of limitations. 

Robert Fitzgerald (Mount Laurel, NJ) received a significant positive outcome at trial. The petitioner sustained a significant injury in July 2013 and later filed a claim for permanent/total disability benefits. Given the petitioner’s age and the exposure of the case, had the petitioner been successful at trial, he would have received more than 26 years of benefits; an indemnity exposure of $556,000. Prior to trial, the petitioner refused to accept any settlement offer below permanent/total disability benefits. Trial began on July 8, 2025, with the petitioner’s testimony. Following the petitioner’s testimony, the judge dismissed the petitioner’s claim for permanent/total disability benefits and recommended a partial disability settlement, which equated to approximately $57,000 in total exposure, which the petitioner accepted. 

Robert Schenk (Philadelphia, PA) was successful in having a claim petition denied. The claimant alleged he sustained an injury to his right elbow when he tripped and fell at work. The workers’ compensation judge denied and dismissed the claimant’s claim, finding no injury or disability. In doing so, the judge noted that the claimant’s testimony as to how he was injured was completely inconsistent with video evidence from the employer’s workplace. The claimant’s testimony was basically that a pallet jack violently hit him and threw him to the floor, causing his injuries. The video showed the claimant tripping over a pallet jack. It also showed him getting up and continuing to work. Since the claimant was found not credible about being injured or disabled, the claim petition was denied and dismissed. 

Robin Romano, and Michael McMaster on brief (both of Philadelphia, PA), were successful in having a claim petition denied and dismissed on behalf of a car rental company. The claimant alleged she was hurt when a customer’s car backed into her on purpose. The claimant was later terminated from employment for belligerence to the customer. The employer’s video surveillance showed that the car barely made contact with the claimant. Fact witness testimony by the employer’s district manager, authenticating the footage and detailing the reasons for the claimant’s termination, plus two defense medical experts, convinced the workers’ compensation judge that the claimant failed to meet her burden of proof. 

CASUALTY DEPARTMENT

Peter Lentini and paralegal Bozena Klodnicki (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) defended a client in a motor vehicle/wrongful death trial in which the jury awarded a much smaller amount than the plaintiff sought. The decedent was rear-ended on the New Jersey Turnpike while driving 9.9 miles per hour at 3 a.m. He was intoxicated, with a blood alcohol level of .095. His car, which was black with black wheels and black-tinted windows, was disabled by the collision and came to rest broadside in the left travel lane. A good Samaritan tow-truck driver saw the crash and stopped to render assistance. He used the flashlight feature on his phone to warn oncoming cars about the disabled black car in the left lane. The decedent, who was uninjured in the initial accident, borrowed the tow-truck driver’s phone/flashlight and re-entered his car in the left lane. Our client’s truck subsequently hit the disabled car while the decedent was in it. The trial judge refused to allow us to introduce evidence relating to the first accident. The decedent’s contributory negligence in causing the first accident, which put him in peril, was to have been the focus of our defense. The court’s decision to prohibit evidence relating to the first accident was almost certainly mistaken, and we advised our client that we were almost certainly entitled to a new trial. Given the surprisingly small verdict, the client indicated that it would likely accept the result. Before trial, the plaintiff’s economist estimated the value of lost services to the family at $6 million+. The judge dismissed damages relating to two siblings. The jury awarded significantly reduced damages to the decedent’s mother in accordance with the arguments we made. 

Kimberly House and Oswald Clark (both of Philadelphia, PA) were successful in a Philadelphia arbitration matter, obtaining a defense verdict as to the plaintiff’s claims and an order requiring the co-defendant to reimburse attorneys’ fees. It was undisputed that a motor vehicle accident occurred involving a third-party independent contractor of our client, a prominent homebuilding company. The plaintiff claimed he was a passenger in the vehicle and, accordingly, brought a negligence action against our client, who tendered its defense to the independent contractor based on a contractual provision requiring defense and indemnification. The independent contractor denied the tender and was subsequently joined into the action. During discovery, it was revealed that the plaintiff’s claims were fraudulent; he falsely claimed he was a passenger in the vehicle. The independent contractor again denied the tender, claiming that because the plaintiff’s claims were fraudulent, its duty to defend was never triggered. The case proceeded to an arbitration where the arbitration panel found neither defendant was liable but disagreed with the co-defendant’s arguments regarding defense and indemnity. Accordingly, the arbitration panel entered a judgment in favor of our client and ordered the co-defendant to reimburse all reasonable attorneys’ fees expended defending the action.

Wendy O’Connor (King of Prussia, PA) won summary judgment in a motor vehicle case before the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiff was in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the vehicle collision. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, and the workers’ compensation judge ultimately determined that her alleged injuries were not related to the motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, which affirmed. In her civil action against the driver and owners of the other vehicle, we asserted that the decision of the workers’ compensation judge acted as collateral estoppel with regard to all claims, thus barring recovery by the plaintiff against our client. In opposition to our motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that the right to a jury trial, as guaranteed under the Pennsylvania Constitution, precluded application of collateral estoppel. The trial court disagreed, finding ample case law to support the application of collateral estoppel in such circumstances, and granted our motion for summary judgment.

Raychel Garcia and Matthew Wykes (both of Orlando, FL) were successful in having all claims against our client’s hotel dismissed. This case involved deeply-distressing allegations of sex trafficking and abuse by the plaintiff’s mother, occurring when the plaintiff was a minor. The claims against our client’s hotel were brought under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and Florida law. While the court was unequivocal in acknowledging the tragic and serious nature of the plaintiff’s allegations against her abusers, it ultimately found that the legal claims against our hotel were not supported by sufficient factual allegations to state a cause of action under either federal or state law. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint without prejudice, affording the plaintiff an opportunity to amend and cure the deficiencies identified. However, upon review of the amended complaint, the court agreed with our renewed motion to dismiss and concluded that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that our hotel knowingly participated in a trafficking venture or maintained a continuous business relationship with the traffickers. The amended complaint alleged only a single instance of trafficking at our client’s hotel and asserted that the conduct was so blatant that hotel staff should have recognized it. The court found this insufficient to support a claim under the TVPRA. Additionally, the court found that the allegations did not meet the high legal threshold required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law. As a result, the court dismissed all claims against our client with prejudice.

Matthew Gray (Melville, NY) was successful in having a New York No-Fault (PIP) action fully discontinued, with prejudice. The plaintiff, a major medical provider, filed suit in Kings County Civil Court in the total amount of $25,805.85, claiming our client owed it for the claimant’s unpaid medical billing. The claimant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for medical treatment. Counsel for the medical provider argued that, since the billing was never paid by the insurer, it was due in full—despite the fact that the same matter had previously been fully exhausted and was processed/handled in full compliance with the applicable medical fee schedule(s). While there were evidentiary issues in our client’s case, our arguments and position were strong. After negotiations and arguments, and prior to the necessity of motion practice and/or a trial, plaintiff’s counsel acquiesced to a full discontinuance of the matter, with prejudice. Thereby, our client was absolved from any fiscal liability in this action.

Erica Cagan (Jacksonville, FL) won a motion for summary judgment in a premises liability case where the plaintiff lost control of her e-bike while riding over leaves in our client’s RV sales lot. The plaintiff claimed that the fall caused an aggravation of a prior shoulder injury, resulting in surgery as well as chronic pain in her low back. Erica argued that the leaves were a naturally occurring element of a wooded lot and, even if they were hazardous, they were open and obvious. The plaintiff argued that she did not perceive the leaves as being hazardous; therefore, there was an issue of fact regarding whether her perception was reasonable. The plaintiff also argued, the fact that our client had a maintenance contract with a service to remove fallen leaves indicated that they were on notice of the leaves being hazardous. The court did not agree with this argument and found in favor of our client. Erica is a first-year associate, and this is her first dispositive motion win. 

Harris Kirsch and Joanne Nachio (both of Fort Lauderdale, FL) successfully argued at the pleading stage that their client, a hotel resort, should not be held liable as a matter of law for the plaintiff’s significant injuries, including a toe amputation. The court agreed with this argument and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding as a matter of law that no duty existed to warn the plaintiff of the hot concrete and beach sand. The matter had initially garnered some media attention, including online articles in the New York Post, Entreprenuer, and Dailymail.com. 

Raychel Garcia and Matthew Wykes (both of Orlando, FL) were granted final summary judgment in a slip-and-fall premises liability case. The plaintiff alleged she slipped and fell on an unidentified wet substance while waiting in line at the defendant’s convenience store. The plaintiff admitted she did not see the substance prior to her fall and did not know what it was, where it came from, or how long it had been there. She testified that the wetness appeared to have been tracked in by other customers, noting their shoes were wet. We moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not meet her burden under § 768.0755, Fla. Stat., to prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged condition. Surveillance footage showed multiple customers walking through the area without issue, and no visible hazard appeared on video. The court agreed, relying, in part, on Leftwich v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 396 So.3d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), and granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Carolyn Bogart and Amy Fox (both of Mount Laurel, NJ) won summary judgment in a wrongful death case, based on a lack of duty owed by a groom to his wedding guest, and dismissal of cross claims for lack of a viable contract owing indemnity under Azurak. The decedent was a plus-one guest at our client’s wedding, which was held at a multi-building facility in Moorestown, NJ. Specifically, the venue consisted, in part, of a 131-year-old home with a castle-like outward appearance. The home’s design included an elevated terrace (raised approximately five feet and accessible by stairs) with an unguarded, flat ledge. The plaintiff alleges the decedent was sitting and/or leaning against the ledge when he fell over, sustaining injuries that allegedly resulted in his death a few months after the event. Our client was an employee at the facility. The corporate owners of the property permitted him to use the home for his wedding, at no cost, provided he obtain an event insurance policy. There was no written contract. The co-defendants sought indemnification, arguing that the policy evidenced an agreement that our client would provide indemnification to them. It was our position, and the court agreed, that our client owed no duty to warn the decedent, as the ledge was an open and obvious condition that the decedent was aware of, or would have observed by a reasonable use of his faculties. Further, our client and the decedent were both invitees to the property, and it was the co-defendant landowners who had a non-delegable duty to use reasonable care to protect against dangerous conditions. Therefore, the claims raised in the complaint and cross-claims for contribution were dismissed. Further, the court found no breach of contract or enforceable agreement to indemnify; the negligence in this case was on the co-defendant commercial property owners, and there was no clear and explicit agreement, oral or written, by which our client agreed to be responsible for risks associated with the structural condition of the property. 

Christopher Power (Melville, NY) obtained a defense verdict in a slip-and-fall case in Suffolk County Supreme Court. The plaintiff was a physician’s assistant who alleged he slipped and fell on a wet area inside his medical facility. He testified at his deposition that he saw mop swirls in the wet spot. He brought suit against the facility’s cleaning company (our client) over one year later. Unrelated to this incident, the plaintiff had a pancreatic cancer relapse after his 2019 slip and fall and was out on workers’ compensation for over one year (which we argued was related to his cancer relapse). The workers’ compensation lien was $229,000. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel produced a note from the plaintiff’s wife stating that he would not be testifying due to his medical condition; therefore, his deposition testimony was read to the jury, which the court allowed. Chris stressed in his opening statement that plaintiff’s counsel had the opportunity to secure witness statements from numerous witnesses and former employees of his client whom counsel never subpoenaed for non-party depositions or trial. Chris’s client (the cleaning company) testified that the plaintiff’s employer had access to his janitorial equipment, including mops, which were always at their disposal. In his summation, Chris stressed to the jury that it would be speculation that a wet spot on a floor would have been caused by his client. Chris also stressed that cleaning companies were targets in slip-and-fall cases and seem to always get blamed for wet substances on floors. He again informed the jury that plaintiff’s counsel had the opportunity to call witnesses but did not do so. The jury deliberated for 55 minutes and rendered a defense verdict.

Mark Wellman and Diane Toner (both of New York, NY) obtained dismissal of all claims against our client in a case involving a slip and fall at a hospital. The plaintiff was employed by a trucking company and was in the process of filling a liquid oxygen tank located in the parking lot of the hospital when he fell on a sheet of ice near the oxygen station evaporators. He sustained numerous injuries, including injuries to his spine, which resulted in a cervical fusion. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff alleged significant lost wages in addition to numerous personal injuries. Our client designed, installed, and maintained the oxygen station pursuant to a lease agreement with the hospital. We submitted evidence that our client properly inspected and maintained the oxygen station and that the ice was not caused by the operation of the oxygen station. After years of litigation and numerous depositions, our client moved for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims and for an order of indemnification against the hospital based on the lease agreement. The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to argue that the station had been negligently designed because he had not pursued that theory throughout the litigation. The court granted our motion in its entirety and dismissed all claims. Diane’s summary judgment motion carried the day and obtained a fantastic result for the client in an unfavorable venue. 

Edward Tuite, Michael Detweiler, Robert Morton and paralegal Kristin Anderson (all of King of Prussia, PA) received a successful trial result in a premises liability matter in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s expert projected future surgeries and extensive life-long medical care costs of $1.25 million. Much of our defense centered on damages and demonstrating that the projected future medical care was not supported by the actual medical treatment provided. Additionally, video of the incident was used to demonstrate that the plaintiff had actual/constructive knowledge of spilled water on the premises but proceeded to walk in that area anyway. Forty percent comparative negligence was assigned to the plaintiff, and, despite the plaintiff’s introduction of the medical cost projection described above, only $50,000 in future medical care was awarded by the jury. The total award, after a molded verdict, was $118,800, which our client viewed as a victory in this venue. The plaintiff’s last formal demand prior to trial had been $240,000. 

Brittany Bakshi and Coryn Hubbert (both of Harrisburg, PA) obtained summary judgment for residential renters in a trip-and-fall case. The plaintiff tripped and fell on a set of porch steps at our clients’ home while attending a barbeque, breaking her ankle. She brought claims against the homeowner. The homeowner then joined our clients, asserting claims of negligence and contractual indemnity under the lease agreement. During her deposition, the plaintiff testified that she was familiar with the poor condition of the steps, had spoken with the renters about the steps prior to her fall, and witnessed two people, an adult and a child, trip on the steps during the same barbeque event. The homeowner also testified at his deposition that it was his responsibility to repair and maintain the subject stairs. Brittany and Coryn argued that our clients were not required to indemnify the homeowners under the Perri-Ruzzi rule and that they owed no duty to the plaintiff, a licensee, as she knew of the condition of the steps and the risks involved in using them. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against the clients.

Benjamin Goshko (Philadelphia, PA) successfully argued for venue transfer in a trip-and-fall case in which the fall took place at a fair located in Columbia County, PA. The plaintiff filed suit in Luzerne County, alleging that the fair conducted substantial business in Luzerne County in the form of ticket sales made in Luzerne County, invitations to Luzerne County-based vendors to obtain concession space at the fair, and substantial contracts with Luzerne County-based entities for supplies for the fair. Relying on recent case law, the defendants argued venue in Luzerne County was improper as ticket sales had not yet occurred in Luzerne County at the time of the accident and constituted less than 2% of the revenue generated by the fair in the year in which suit was filed. Other contacts with Luzerne County were argued to be incidental to the business of the fair. After two rounds of oral argument, venue depositions and seven sets of venue discovery requests, the court sustained the defendants’ preliminary objections and ordered the matter transferred to Columbia County.

Vlada Tasich, Michael Salvati, and Benjamin Matzke (all of Philadelphia, PA) succeeded in having a product manufacturer and distributer dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in a wrongful death case. Our clients, a windshield manufacturer and distributer, are located in Ohio and South Carolina. The decedent was driving on I-95 in Philadelphia when a large piece of metal speared through the windshield and impaled the decedent’s chest. The plaintiff, a Philadelphia police officer, alleged that the windshield was defective. Although the windshield was installed by a co-defendant in Philadelphia and the accident occurred in Philadelphia, we successfully argued against the “stream of commerce” theory of jurisdiction, demonstrating that our clients had insufficient contacts with Pennsylvania to be subject to jurisdiction here. 

Rachel Insalaco and Mark Kozlowski (both of Scranton, PA) obtained the dismissal of our client, a county youth services (CYS) organization, from a matter involving allegations of child abuse and wrongful prosecution against a hospital and other medical providers. The plaintiffs, consisting of 12 sets of parents and their minor children, have alleged that the hospital, through then-director of its Child Advocacy Center, had wrongly accused the parents of child abuse after bringing their children in for routine medical treatment. They have alleged that, as a result of these accusations, many children were removed from their parents’ custody and prevented from receiving needed medical care. The hospital filed a joinder complaint against our client and other county CYS agencies, alleging that the children could only have been removed from their parents’ custody at a CYS agency’s behest. We filed preliminary objections on our client’s behalf, arguing that it was squarely immune from the claims at issue per the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and Child Protective Services Law, that the allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint did not support the hospital’s assertions against our client, and that even if the claims against the agency were permitted to proceed, venue in Philadelphia County would be improper. The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas sustained our preliminary objections following oral argument. 

*Results do not guarantee a similar result. 

_{Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 3, September 2025, 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. © 2025 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.}