Attorney who succeeded in persuading the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the forum non conveniens dismissal of a case

Attorney who succeeded in persuading the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to affirm the forum non conveniens dismissal of a case defended in the trial court by another firm attorney on the basis that it should have been commenced in Maryland rather than Pennsylvania. The case involved claims for compensatory, consumer fraud and bad faith damages under an insurance policy that covered a restaurant in Maryland that was damaged by fire. Plaintiffs, who owned the building were residents of New Jersey and had a business office in New York. To complicate matters further, plaintiffs used a Maryland insurance agent to obtain coverage for the building, including the restaurant. The agent engaged in the Maryland office of a multi-state broker, which obtained coverage from a Pennsylvania insurer. The insurance policy conditioned its fire insurance coverage on the presence of fire protective safeguards, but plaintiffs claimed that they never received a copy of the policy with that provision. Coverage was denied because safeguards had not been installed and the plaintiffs sued the insurer in Pennsylvania. The insurer in turn joined the agent, and moved for dismissal of the case on forum non conveniens grounds. Although plaintiffs insisted that their choice of forum could not be easily trumped, and that the main thrust of their case was the bad faith claim against the Pennsylvania insurer, the defendants prevailed because the case had significant public and private contacts with Maryland and plaintiffs could recommence their case there.