Angino v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 696 Fed.Appx. 572 (3d Cir. 2017): following a defense verdict on a UIM claim brought on his own behalf by a noted Central Pennsylvania plaintiff’s attorney, the trial court generally denied plaintiff’s motion for new trial (2016 WL 6563663 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 4, 2016), see that Opinion here) which was affirmed by the Third Circuit, observing “The Anginos were offered the opportunity for a new trial limited to damages for the uncontested injuries. They were not entitled to anything more. They were certainly not entitled to a new trial for damages for all of Mr. Angino’s alleged injuries, as they insisted. By immediately appealing, the Anginos forfeited their opportunity to obtain the limited relief offered by the District Court. We decline to give them yet another bite at the apple.” The Third Circuit’s Opinion can be found here.
Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 625 Pa. 1, 89 A.3d 643 (2014): Prepared an amicus brief for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, on behalf of Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc., arguing in favor of reinstating the statutory employer doctrine, which had been abrogated by the Trial and Superior Courts in this worksite accident case. Justice (now Chief Justice) Saylor quoted our brief in which we observed that the “the approach of the trial and intermediate courts here [was] so ‘precipitous and poorly-reasoned’ as to raise concerns about the competency of the judicial system.” Patton, 625 Pa. at 9, 89 A.3d at 647. The Opinion can be found here.
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Refrigerated Food Distributors, Inc., 936 A.2d 81 (Pa.Super. 2007): Successful appeal by refrigerant seller that reversed trial court’s grant of contractual indemnification owed by the seller to the refrigerant manufacturer. The Superior Court adopted our argument drawing material distinctions between an indemnification clause and an exculpatory clause, warranting reversal of the trial court. The Opinion can be found here.
Polanco v. Coneqtec Universal, 474 F.Supp.2d 735 (E.D.Pa. 2007): Successfully argued that the 30 day period within which a case may be removed to the federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) begins to run when the complaint (and not merely a writ of summons) is served. The Opinion can be found here.
Dale v. Webb Corp., 252 F.Supp.2d 186 (E.D.Pa. 2003): Defense Motion for Summary Judgment granted in a product liability suit, where plaintiff, who suffered amputation of 2 fingers operating a plate bending role machine, brought suit against the corporate successor to the machine’s manufacturer. The defense defeated plaintiff’s attempt to invoke the product line exception to the general rule against corporate successor liability. The Dale case represented the first instance in Pennsylvania law that a court held as a matter of law that, in order to apply the product line exception, the corporate succession had to have caused the plaintiff’s lack of a remedy against the original manufacturer, which was not the case in the subject corporate succession. The Opinion can be found here.