Publications
Supreme Court decides that the right of subrogation and reimbursement under Section 319 of the Act is precluded by the Section 213 provision of absolute governmental immunity such that a governmental entity is not subject to subrogation claims.
The claimant fractured her right ankle when a public transit bus on which she was a passenger was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The injury occurred in the course and scope of her employment with the employer.
Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Employer's suspension of benefits upheld because claimant voluntarily accepted retirement package in which he agreed he was not under duress, was able to work and was not disabled.
The claimant sustained an acknowledged work injury on September 7, 2005. In May 2006, as a member of the union, the claimant attended a meeting addressing the employers' plan for attrition of the workforce.
Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Application of ten-year statute of repose, NJSA 2A:14-1.1, clarified in multi-phase project setting.
New Jersey's statute of repose essentially provides that no action may be brought to recover damages for any deficiency in the "design, planning, surveying, supervision or construction" of a project "more than 10 years after the performance or fur
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
Pennsylvania legislature moves forward with public-private partnerships for transportation infrastructure projects.
On July 5, 2012, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett approved the modernization of the procurement of infrastructure projects in Pennsylvania.
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
As a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court determined that Delaware's motor vehicle law requires an insurer to provide PIP coverage under a Delaware policy for an insured who is insured as a pedestrian in Delaware by a Delaware-insured car.
As a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's holding that Delaware's automobile insurance statute requires an insurer to provide personal injury protection coverage under a Delaware policy for an insured who is
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
Appellate court seeks instruction from Supreme Court as to whether an estranged husband who intentionally directed that title be issued in his name as co-owner may avoid liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Following a fatal collision, the appellant's personal representative filed an action against a drunk driver and appellee, the deceased-driver's estranged husband. The driver and the husband separated in 1999.
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
An owner of a vehicle, who prevails over a tow truck company for failure to comply with notice requirements and to make a good faith effort to determine and locate the owner, is not entitled to recovery of vehicle.
In a suit brought by the appellee owner of a vehicle against the appellant towing company, alleging conversion and civil theft arising out of the towing of the vehicle, the trial court granted a motion for vehicle release filed by the owner.
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
Discovery of Facebook information: judge provides helpful analysis for discovery, which is governed by Pa.R.C.P. Rule 4011. Courts must balance whether discovery causes "unreasonable" annoyance, embarrassment and oppression.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judge Wettick has provided the public with a thoughtful overview and analysis of the discoverability of information on plaintiffs' and defendants' Facebook pages.
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
The Third Circuit holds that an employee failed to demonstrate an inference of age discrimination where his alleged comparator performed different job functions and was not, as a result, similarly situated.
The Third Circuit upheld dismissal of the employee's age discrimination claim, holding that he could not set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination.
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
An employee's purported back injury failed to qualify as an actual disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
The court determined that a former employee's purported back problem was not an actual disability under the ADA because the employee failed to "put forth evidence showing that his back problems constituted impairment substantially limitin
Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012