Skip to content

All posts by admin - 2. page

Is the Regular Use Exclusion in Vehicle Coverage Becoming a Relic of the Past?

By Jason G. Bates, Esquire

Recent decisions in Pennsylvania appear to be eroding the Regular Use Exclusion in Pennsylvania. Most automobile insurance policies in Pennsylvania contain a “regular use” exclusion to insurance coverage whenever an injured individual was in a vehicle that was regularly available for that individual’s use but was not covered by the insurance policy at issue. The rationale for this exclusion is to prevent an insurance carrier from providing coverage to an injured party where, unbeknownst to the carrier, the injured party regularly used another vehicle which was not covered under the carrier’s policy because the carrier has not been paid a premium by the injured party to cover that risk.

Historically, this exclusion to coverage has survived challenges to its validity in Pennsylvania courts and recently has continued to do so. (See Williams v. Geico Government Employees Insurance, 32 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2011); and more recently in two unpublished Pennsylvania Superior Court cases: Rawl v. Geico, No. 1086 WDA 2019, 237 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Super. 2020)(unpublished) and Eckert v. Unitrin Auto Home Insurance, No. 1013 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. 2020)(published)).

This seemingly secure footing for the “regular use” exclusion, came under attack by the recent case of Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange which is currently making its way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Continue reading

Paul J. Smyth Joins Connor, Weber & Oberlies

Paul J. Smyth joined Connor, Weber & Oberlies in 2021 and works out of the Moorestown, New Jersey office.  Paul focuses his practice in the areas of general liability, premises liability and personal injury.  Paul also has vast experience in mass tort defense in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Jason G. Bates joins Connor, Weber & Oberlies

Jason G. Bates joined Connor, Weber & Oberlies in 2021 and works out of the Paoli, Pennsylvania office.

Jason brings his extensive experience in handling various litigation matters at all levels of the State and Federal Court systems, including general defense litigation, municipal law, civil rights litigation, premises liability and automobile negligence litigation.  He has state and federal jury trial experience and has experience trying cases at the arbitration level.  Mr. Bates has been a presenter in several continuing legal education seminars and paralegal seminars.  He also has authored articles on subrogation and social host liability issues. 

Guardians, Parents and COVID-19 Vaccination

Carrie A.S. Kennedy of Connor, Weber & Oberlies recently argued successfully in the area of guardianship and COVID-19 Vaccination, as the Chester County Judge concluded that he agreed with the opinion of an expert witness in the case, “The science is clear … ‘this is not a difficult call. Vaccination against COVID-19 saves lives.’”

This legal case involved a disagreement between a mother and father over the vaccination of their adult daughter, with Down syndrome, who lives in a local group home. Her parents are long-divorced and are court appointed as co-guardians of their daughter. After making no progress in resolving the issue, the father petitioned for vaccination of his daughter.

Continue reading

Robert E. Lavoie III joins Connor, Weber & Oberlies

Robert E. Lavoie III joined Connor, Weber & Oberlies in 2020 and works out of the Paoli, Pennsylvania office. Robert focuses his practice in the areas of general liability, products liability, and professional liability litigation. Robert is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Intentions Ambiguous in Shooting During Fistfight

By Patrick T. Casey, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on an insurer’s duty to defend in the case of Erie Insurance Exchange v. Tracy L. Moore, Harold E. McCutcheon, III, individually and as administrators of the Estate of Harold Eugene McCutcheon, Jr. and Richard A. Carly, No. 20 WAP 2018, 2020 WL 1932642 (Pa. April 22, 2020).  The court found that there was a duty to defend an insured where the acts complained of by the plaintiff were deemed potentially unintended, despite the insured’s several prior and subsequent acts of intentional violence.

The facts of the case arose from the murder of Terry McCutcheon by her ex-husband Harold E. McCutcheon, Jr. and his subsequent suicide.  Prior to these events, McCutcheon had left a note to his adult children explaining his intention to murder his ex-wife and commit suicide.  In accordance with his stated plan, McCutcheon intentionally shot and killed his ex-wife at her home.  Before he could shoot himself, however, he was interrupted by the arrival of his ex-wife’s current boyfriend, Richard A. Carly.  Carly began knocking on the door and eventually tried to enter when there was no answer.  At this point, McCutcheon suddenly opened the door and pulled Carly inside.  Continue reading

Waiver of Attorney Work Product and Attorney-Client Privilege Protections

Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Waiver of Attorney Work Product and Attorney-Client Privilege Protections

by Patrick Casey, Esquire

The attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine are two well-known evidentiary protections. Although both protect otherwise relevant and “discoverable” materials from disclosure, the two evidentiary protections serve different purposes and are subject to different standards.

The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to foster the free and open communication of information between the lawyer and client. Whereas, the purpose of the work product doctrine is to protect the mental impressions of an attorney acting on behalf of a client. Consistent with the purposes of these evidentiary protections, the attorney-client privilege is held by the client, while the work product protection is held by the attorney.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which attorney work product protection may be waived, while distinguishing such waiver from the standard for waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Continue reading

Robert A Morton, IV joins Connor, Weber & Oberlies

Robert A. Morton IV joined Connor, Weber & Oberlies in 2019 and works out of the Paoli, Pennsylvania office. Robert focuses his practice in the areas of construction claims, products liability, professional liability, and Federal Civil Rights litigation. Robert is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Tax Court. Robert will be based out of the Paoli office of Connor, Weber & Oberlies.

Summary Judgement affirmed in Malpractice case against NJ Insurance Producer.

Summary Judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division in a professional malpractice case against an insurance producer in a New Jersey Superior Court case. Amelia M. Lolli, Esquire was successful in obtaining summary judgment in favor of a Camden County insurance agency in a 2014 case. The summary judgment decision was appealed by the Plaintiff and oral argument was conducted by Ms. Lolli in front of the Appellate Division in January 2019. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the case by the trial court and found the insurance producer did not breach a fiduciary duty to its client.