• Home
  • About Me
  • Disclaimer

The Researching Paralegal

~ Articles and Research for Legal Professionals

The Researching Paralegal

Category Archives: Litigation

Indiana Takes On Liquidated Damages in Contract Law.

11 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Contract Law, Damages, Indiana Court of Appeals, Litigation, State Appellate Courts

≈ Comments Off on Indiana Takes On Liquidated Damages in Contract Law.

Tags

Auburn, Contract Law, ContractsProf Blog, Dean V. Kruse Foundation, Dean V. Kruse Foundation v. Gates, Indiana, Indiana Law Review, Jeremy Telman, Jerry Gates, Kimberly Cohen, Liquidated Damages, Michael Dorelli, Penalty Clause, Purchase Agreement, World War II Museum

Indiana Court of Appeals on Liquidated Damages, by Jeremy Telman, ContractsProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lqqbvpw

As you can see from the quote below, this is the fifth in this series. I encourage you to read the entire series to get the full big picture. -CCE

This is the fifth in a series of posts that draw on Michael Dorelli and Kimberly Cohen’s recent article in the Indiana Law Review on developments in contracts law in Indiana.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

10 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Damages, Evidence, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Personal Injury, State Appellate Courts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Oh Happy Day for Pennsylvania Personal Injury Plaintiffs.

Tags

Appellate Law, Bodily Injury, Brian Butler, Damages, Daniel E. Cummins, Delay Damages Calculation, Future Medical Expenses, Pain and Suffering, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Personal Injury, Roth v. Ross and Erie Insurance Group, TORT TALK

Appellate Case of First Impression – Future Medical Expenses Are To Be Included in Delay Damages Calculation, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/02/appellate-case-of-first-impression.html

In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in Roth v. Ross and Erie Insurance Group, 977 MDA 2013, 2014 Pa. Super. 20 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2014 Donohue, Ott, J.J., Platt, S.J.)(Opinion by Donohue, J.), that an award of future medical expenses in a personal injury case should be included in the calculation of delay damages due to the Plaintiff on a verdict. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

How Do Jurors In A Recession Really Feel About The Financial Industry?

09 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Class Actions, Corporate Law, Finance and Banking Law, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, White Collar Crime

≈ Comments Off on How Do Jurors In A Recession Really Feel About The Financial Industry?

Tags

Banking Industry, Elizabeth Babbitt M.A., Financial Institutions, For The Defense Magazine, High-Interest Loans, Housing Crash, Jill Leibold Ph.D., Juror Bias, Jurors, Litigation Insights, Louis A. Huber III, Mortgage Foreclosure, Recession

Take This To The Bank: Jurors’ Evaluations Of Financial Industry Defendants During A Recession, by Jill Leibold Ph.D., Director, Jury Research, Elizabeth Babbitt, M.A., Consultant, and Louis A. Huber III, of Schlee, Huber, McMullen and Krause, LITIGATION INSIGHTS

http://tinyurl.com/nx84u56

[I]n the following article, published in DRI’s, For the Defense magazine, we wanted to evaluate biases in the way jurors would view banking or finance defendants. Given that almost all of Americans have felt they’ve been affected by the most recent recession, we conducted a study to gauge those positive or negative attitudes toward the financial industry as well as piece together how these issues could shape jurors’ perceptions toward banking and finance defendants come trial. . . .

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Experienced Trial Attorney Shares The Risks and Rewards Of Personal Injury Lawsuits.

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Depositions, Discovery, Expert Witness, Experts, Health Law, Law Office Management, Litigation, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Experienced Trial Attorney Shares The Risks and Rewards Of Personal Injury Lawsuits.

Tags

Butter’s Blog, Expert Witness Fees, Fortune 500, Foshee & Yaffe, Gregory H. Haubrich, Jackpot Justice, Lawyer Fees, Litigation Costs, Medical Malpractice, Personal injury lawyer, Trial Tips & Techniques

Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive, Pt. I, by Gregory H. Haubrich, Foshee & Yaffe, Butter’s Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mgq7pnl

You’d be surprised at how careful good personal injury lawyers are about what cases they take. In general the public thinks that we can take any person with any complaint and get them some of what our governor calls “jackpot justice.” In truth, the economics of our practice and the ethics of our profession require that we only take cases of serious injury that are objectively provable. We as plaintiff’s lawyers most often fund the expenses of our clients’ cases; otherwise they would not have access to the courts because court cases are expensive. However, if we invest in unsuccessful cases, the time and money we put into those cases will be lost.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Recent Kansas Case Ignores Sperm Donor Parties’ Written Agreement.

01 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Child Support, Contract Law, Family Law, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Recent Kansas Case Ignores Sperm Donor Parties’ Written Agreement.

Tags

Artificial Insemination, Child Support, Contract Law, Craigslist, Judge Mary Mattivi, Kansas Department of Children and Families, Kansas District Court, Parental Rights, Shawnee County, Sperm Donor, William Marotta

Sperm Donor Ordered to Pay Child Support Despite Agreement, by Nancy Kim, ContractsProfBlog

http://tinyurl.com/lsm5zth

A man responded to a Craigslist ad for a sperm donor posted by two women. Each of them signed an agreement that the man waived his parental rights and responsibilities. A child was born as the result.

Regardless of the parties’ written agreement, the Kansas Department of Children and Families, not the two women, sued to have the man declared as the legal father of the child. As the legal father, the Kansas Department of Children and Families asked the Court to award it $6,000 award against the man for past and future child support.

Because a Kansas statute requires a physician to perform the artificial insemination procedure, a Kansas District Court ruled that a sperm donor’s self-designation in the parties’ agreement was insufficient to waive parental rights and responsibilities. Therefore, the Judge decided that the Kansas Department of Children and Families was right – the man was indeed the legal father and owed the demanded child support. -CCE

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Texas Federal Court Holds That Intrastate Truck Drivers Are Eligible for Overtime.

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Texas Federal Court Holds That Intrastate Truck Drivers Are Eligible for Overtime.

Tags

Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, Interstate, Intrastate, Motor Carriers, Overtime, Technical Corrections Act, Truck Drivers, Wage and Hour Law

Federal Court Finds Intrastate Truck Drivers Eligible For Overtime Pay, by Andrew Iwata, Lawyer Up Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mkem29j

In Butcher v. TSWS d/b/a Pot-O-Gold, (S.D. Tex. August 25, 2011), the Southern District of Texas denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving FLSA overtime claims brought by truck drivers.  The employer argued that the plaintiffs were subject to the FLSA’s motor carrier exemption (which would mean that the drivers were not entitled to overtime pay) because the plaintiffs work affected the safety of interstate transportation.  Although the plaintiffs never crossed state lines in driving their trucks for the defendant, the company claimed that the employees could have been called upon to drive interstate at any time.  The court acknowledged that under Songer v. Dillon Resources, 618 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2010), an intrastate driver may be exempt during periods when the driver ‘could have been called upon’ to drive interstate at any time.  The court acknowledged that under Songer v. Dillon Resources, 618 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2010), an intrastate driver may be exempt during periods when the driver “could have been called upon” to drive interstate.

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Court Splits on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

27 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Damages, Health Law, Litigation, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Medical Malpractice, Torts, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Splits on Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Tags

Bystander Liability, Damages, Emotional Distress, Impact Rule, Medical Malpractice, Neglience, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Toney v. Chester County Hospital, Tort, Zone of Impact Liability

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Splits On Extension of Tort of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mr4matq

The recent December 22, 2011 split decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the long-anticipated Opinion in the case of Toney v. Chester County Hospital, 2011 WL 6413948 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2011)(Baer, Todd, and McCaffery, JJ. join in support of affirmance)(Castille, Saylor, Eakin, JJ. join in support of reversal)(Orie Melvin, J. not participating) serves to fuel an argument in favor of the extension of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Excellent Case on Document Retention Policies and Litigation Holds.

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in E-Discovery, Hearsay, Judges, Legal Technology, Litigation, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Sanctions, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Excellent Case on Document Retention Policies and Litigation Holds.

Tags

Asbestos Insurance Coverage Litigation, Document Retention Policy, E-Discovery, Hearsay, Judge Paul Grimm, Litigation Hold, Sanctions, State of Mind Execption

No Sanctions for Following Records Retention Policy, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie’s Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/opq4t3t

It is not every day you see lawsuits about insurance policies from 1986 to 1987.

Add Judge Paul Grimm’s powerhouse footnotes and you get a great lesson in document retention policies and litigation holds (plus a great footnote on the state of mind exception to hearsay for all the evidence fans).

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Rethink Calling Your Clients “Toothless Cooties.”

25 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Legal Ethics, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Rethink Calling Your Clients “Toothless Cooties.”

Tags

Case Evaluation, Client Communication, Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Legal Ethics, Litigation, Persuasive Litigator Blog, Trial Tips & Techniques

Criticize Clients Carefully, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/mg4bbue

Please note additional articles on client communication and relations at the end of the article. – CCE

There is no doubt that it’s a litigator’s job to realistically assess the case and, when the situation demands it, to deliver bad news to the client. How that assessment is crafted and communicated, however, is where the care comes in.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Second Circuit Denies Officers’ Qualified Immunity.

22 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Evidence, Excessive Force, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Governmental Tort Claim Act, Litigation

≈ Comments Off on Second Circuit Denies Officers’ Qualified Immunity.

Tags

Adam Klasfeld, Confidential Informant, Courthouse News Service, Drug Paraphernalia, Drugs, Excessive Use of Force, Fourth Amendment, No Knock Warrant, Qualified Immunity, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Pooler, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Weapons

Botched Drug Bust Sends Investigator to Court, By Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/01/22/64741.htm

 When law enforcement execute a search warrant on a residence, officers can use the “knock and announce” rule. Police knock on the door, announce their  intent to enter, and wait a “reasonable time” for the resident to open the door. Obviously, this approach has its drawbacks. Officers’ announcement of their presence before entering the residence can cause possible destruction of evidence and/or endanger the officers or others.

Law enforcement has another option – the “no knock” rule, which is just what it sounds like. Officers can obtain a search warrant to enter without knocking and announcing their presence or intentions before entering the residence. To obtain a no-knock warrant, the officers need to prove to the judge issuing the warrant that the officers are not disregarding reliable information indicating that this type of use of force is inappropriate. When procedures are properly followed, the involved officers have qualified immunity if the homeowner later sues for damages or excessive use of force under the Fourth Amendment.

When issuing a no-knock warrant, the police kick in or knock down the door to enter the residence. Regardless of the method, the door is often completely knocked off its hinges. In this Second Circuit case, the effect was even more dramatic. Around 6 a.m., Ms. McColley, a mother, and her young daughter woke to the sounds of the police knocking down the front door and the explosion of a flash bang grenade. -CCE

An immunity defense is premature for the drug investigator who led a turbulent raid on the apartment of a family with no criminal history, the 2nd Circuit ruled.

*     *     *

Michael Riley, an investigator for the Rensselaer County Drug & Gang Task Force, obtained the warrant days earlier based on the word of a confidential informant.

Though the CI claimed to have bought crack-cocaine from a man named Sport at the apartment, Riley conducted a background check on the property that revealed McColley as the tenant with her spotless record and young child.

He applied for the no-knock warrant anyway without mentioning the background check, the two-judge majority found.

‘The search of McColley’s home did not uncover any money, weapons, drugs, drug-related paraphernalia, or any evidence of criminality of any kind,’ Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the court. ‘The ERT took only a National Grid electric and gas bill and a registration bill for Hudson Valley Community College as fruits of the search.’

Accused of violating McColley’s Fourth Amendment rights, Rensaleer and Riley claimed qualified immunity, but U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn denied them summary judgment.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Lawyers Flocking to West Virginia Chemical Spill Already Talking About Punitive Damages.

15 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Environment Law, Environmental Protection Agency, Punitive Damages

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

American Water Works, Bloomberg Businesweek, Charlston, Chemical Contamination, Elk River, Freedom Industries, Hill Peterson Carper Bee & Deitzler, James Peterson, Paul M. Barrett, West Virginia, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Lawyers Aim Bigger Than Freedom Industries in West Virginia Chemical Spill, by Paul M. Barrett, Bloomberg Businessweek

http://tinyurl.com/lcugp8s

In a neo-Tuscan villa in an office park near the Charleston, W. Va., airport, seven West Virginia plaintiffs’ lawyers gathered on Jan. 13 for a council of war. Chemical contamination that four days earlier had cut off tap water to 300,000 West Virginians was making its way west into Ohio. Local authorities were saying that Freedom Industries, the source of the 7,500 gallons of rogue coal-processing chemical, may not have acted swiftly to warn about the seepage. And the federal prosecutor in town sounded dead serious about a criminal investigation.

No surprise, then, that the atmosphere in the elegant conference room of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, while businesslike, had an undertone of bellicose joy. ‘We’re looking at punitive damages, ‘piercing the corporate veil’ at Freedom Industries, and holding the water company and the chemical manufacturer liable, too,’ said James Peterson, the strategy session’s host. Dressed in a black sweatsuit and tan baseball cap, he acknowledged that he hadn’t showered in five days. Then he smiled and said: ‘Neither have a lot of other people around here, and they’re pissed.’

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Changes Expected This Year in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation.

05 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Construction, Expert Witness, Legal Technology, Litigation, Medical Malpractice, Motor Vehicle, Product Liability, Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Changes Expected This Year in Pennsylvania Civil Litigation.

Tags

Civil Litigation, Construction Litigation, Daniel E. Cummins, Expert Witness Discovery, Legal Technology, Massachusetts Supreme Court, Medical Malpractice, Motor Vehicle, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, Product Liability Litigation, TORT TALK

Changes Anticipated for Pa. Civil Litigation Jurisprudence in 2014, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK, republished from Pennsylvania Law Weekly

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/01/article-changes-anticipated-for-pa.html

Currently, there are a number of important civil litigation issues pending before the Pennsylvania appellate courts, the results of which could significantly impact the way litigators practice in the years ahead. Moreover, notable changes over the past year in Pennsylvania statutory law, as well as the Rules of Professional Responsibility, are expected to have a significant impact.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

EPA Standard for Lead Poisoning Will Not Change In Spite of Evidence That Harm Exists.

07 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Federal Law, Personal Injury

≈ Comments Off on EPA Standard for Lead Poisoning Will Not Change In Spite of Evidence That Harm Exists.

Tags

Allison Young, EPA, Howard Mielke, Lead poisoning, Tulane University Medical School, USA TODAY

EPA Fails To Revise Key Lead-Poisoning Hazard Standards, by Allison Young, USA TODAY

http://tinyurl.com/kk9b5kv

‘It’s outrageous we aren’t acting on what we know,’ said Howard Mielke, a soil contamination expert at Tulane University’s medical school. Mielke served on an EPA lead advisory panel that gave input on revising the agency’s house dust standard for lead more than two years ago. He said the soil standard also is too high to protect kids from harm.

 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

The Sixth Circuit Wrestles With When to Pull the Trigger on the Unconscionability Doctrine in Arbitration Clauses.

30 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Appellate Law, Arbitration, Class Actions, LexisNexis, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The Sixth Circuit Wrestles With When to Pull the Trigger on the Unconscionability Doctrine in Arbitration Clauses.

Tags

Arbitrations, Class Action, ContractsProf Blog, D.A. Jeremy Telman, LexisNexis, Unconscionability Doctrin

Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court, Rejects Attorney’s Bid for Class-Wide Arbitration, by Kprofs2013, edited by D.A. Jeremy Telman, ContractsProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p9sryqw

This case started as a disagreement between a law firm and LexisNexis over billing practices. The parties’ disagreement was bound by an arbitration agreement. The law firm decided to bring two class actions over 500 million dollars against LexisNexis. The terms of the arbitration agreement and the lack of any definitive U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether classwide arbitrability is a “gateway” or “subsidiary” question places the Sixth Circuit in an interesting conundrum.

What follows in this post at ContractsProf Blog is an analysis of the Sixth Court’s opinion, the ambiguous arbitration agreement, and the use, or lack thereof, of the unconscionability doctrine. -CCE 

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Court Denies Facebook Discovery Requests by Both Parties.

23 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Evidence, Legal Technology, Personal Injury, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Denies Facebook Discovery Requests by Both Parties.

Tags

Daniel E. Cummins, Discovery, Facebook, Judge Wettick, Personal Injury, Personal injury lawyer, Traffic collision

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

Judge Wettick Rules on Facebook Discovery Issues, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://tinyurl.com/c8p3snr

After providing a detailed review of the issue over a 22 paged Opinion, which includes a background on Facebook itself and a review of decisions from both within Pennsylvania and from outside jurisdictions, Judge Wettick ruled that both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s motions to compel access to the other’s Facebook pages would be denied in this motor vehicle accident litigation.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Uninsured Motorist Benefits Case Enforces 30-Day Notice Requirement

05 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Court Orders, Personal Injury, Uninsured Motorist

≈ Comments Off on Pennsylvania Supreme Court Uninsured Motorist Benefits Case Enforces 30-Day Notice Requirement

Tags

Notice Requirement, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Uninsured Motorist

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Revisits Notice Requirement in UM Cases, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.perma.cc/085wjhMSgfT

In an uninsured motorist benefits case that has gone all the way up the appellate ladder, back down again, and, now, all the way back up, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the matter of Vanderhoff v. Harleysville, No. 98 MAP 2012 (Pa. October 30, 2013)(Opinion by Eakin, J.), the court addressed the following issues:

(1) What constitutes “actual prejudice” to relieve and insurance company of its obligation to pay insurance benefits to an insured?

(2) Should “actual prejudice” involve proof by an insurance carrier that it suffered a real material impairment of its ability to investigation and defend an uninsured claim?

(3) What constitutes a reasonable basis for a trial court finding that prejudice exists in a late report of a phantom vehicle?

In its majority Opinion, the Court essentially held that all three issues are really part of the same test.

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

EEOC Loses Claim of Unlawful Discrimination Against Employer

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Class Actions, Criminal History, EEOC, Employment Law, Race Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on EEOC Loses Claim of Unlawful Discrimination Against Employer

Tags

Criminal History, EEOC, Employment Law, Race Discrimination

 EEOC Smacked Down in Rare Employer Win in Defending Claim of Unlawful Discrimination, by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor
http://bit.ly/17hzWaK

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...

The “Litigation Explosion” is a Myth

23 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Personal Injury, Settlement

≈ Comments Off on The “Litigation Explosion” is a Myth

Tags

Greg Haubrich, Juries, Litigation, McDonald's, Personal Injury, Settlement

Greg H. Haubrich, Senior Trial Lawyer at Foshee & Yafee, explains why he recommended — and his client accepted — a settlement agreement that will barely pay her medical bills.

gregh1952's avatarThe Haubrich Law Firm, P.C.

The Myth of the “Litigation Explosion”   

A lawyer wears two hats:  Advocate, and counselor.  As advocate, my duty is to fight for you hard as hell, tooth and nails; to be the knight in shining armor charging into the Valley of Death.  As counselor, I must give you the news and help you realistically evaluate your odds so that you can make well-informed decisions regarding basic questions in your case: especially, whether to accept a settlement offer.

Today I recommended — and my client accepted — a settlement agreement that will barely pay her medical bills.   Why?

The first reason is that it is hard to understand how a person can be seriously injured in a collision when there is not a lot of visible crash damage to their vehicle.  Science does not support the idea that crash damage correlates to injury.  In fact, it is established that deaths sometimes…

View original post 968 more words

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • More
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Like Loading...
Newer posts →
Follow The Researching Paralegal on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

Sign In/Register

  • Create account
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Categories

Archives

  • June 2024
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…

Recent Comments

lawyersonia's avatarlawyersonia on In Custodia Legis – Lega…
Eric Voigt's avatarEric Voigt on Top 20 Paralegal Blogs, Websit…
profvoigt's avatarprofvoigt on Research Guides in Focus – Mun…
Make Your PDF Docume… on Make Your PDF Document Edit-Pr…
madlaw291282999's avatarmadlaw291282999 on Using Hyperbole -Are You Riski…
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Join 460 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • The Researching Paralegal
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d