The appropriate use of social media in litigation remains an evolving issue in New Jersey. The search term “Facebook” will result in hundreds of cases spanning the civil, criminal and family law arenas. Last week, a divided Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Review Board, in the latest chapter of a lengthy legal process, admonished a New Jersey attorney for instructing his paralegal to “friend request” an adverse party in order to investigate a party’s Facebook posts. In rendering its decision, the DRB majority also recommended that the Supreme Court adopt a new policy on lawyers using social media for discovery purposes. Continue reading
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
Recently, each house of the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has introduced proposed legislation addressing the possibility of compelling insurance carriers to provide coverage due to the COVID-19 virus, regardless as to whether the insurance policy identifies such coverage as contained within the policy provisions.
House Bill 2372 provides in relevant part:
Notwithstanding any other law, rule or regulation, an insurance policy that insures against loss or damage to property, which includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption, in force in this Commonwealth on March 6, 2020, which is the date of the Proclamation of Disaster Emergency concerning the coronavirus pandemic, shall be construed to include among the covered perils under the insurance policy coverage for business interruption due to global virus transmission or pandemic.
The Bill continues:
The coverage required by this section shall indemnify the insured of an insurance policy, subject to the broadest or greatest limit and lowest deductible afforded to business interruption coverage under the insurance policy, for any loss of business or business interruption for the duration of the declaration of disaster emergency described in subsection (a).
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Waiver of Attorney Work Product and Attorney-Client Privilege Protections
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
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.
By: Julia Jacobelli
On December 28, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion which expands on the definition of “real property,” for purposes of determining governmental immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
In Brewington v. City of Philadelphia, Walter G. Smith Elementary School and The School District of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reversing the entry of Summary Judgment in favor of the School District. Plaintiff, Jarett Brewington (a minor) and his mother, Syeta Brewington, claimed that on May 9, 2012, Jarett was participating in a relay race during gym class at Walter G. Smith Elementary School when he tripped and fell, causing him to propel headfirst into a wall at the end of the gym. The wall was concrete, and not padded. As a result of his fall, minor plaintiff suffered a concussion, was absent from school for a period of time, and suffered headaches and memory issues.
Can a buyer of residential real estate waive a seller’s disclosure obligations under Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law?
The short answer is: maybe, but in any event, not absent an affirmative waiver. In Phelps v. Caperoon, — A.3d –, 2018 WL 3016477 (Pa. Super. June 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the issue of whether an “as-is” clause in the agreement of sale implicitly waived a seller’s disclosure obligations under the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law, 68 Pa. C.S. §§ 7101-7103, 7301-7314, et seq., (“RESDL”), but stopped short of giving a definitive answer as to whether an explicit waiver would be permitted. Continue reading
Product liability litigation in Pennsylvania was significantly altered by the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 628 Pa. 296 (2014), which overruled Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547 (1978), and returned to fact finders the responsibility to determine if a product was unreasonably dangerous, based on a full evaluation of the proofs offered by the plaintiff.
By: Pat Casey
A common practice in many state civil courtrooms throughout Pennsylvania, certainly in its two busiest courts – the Philadelphia and Allegheny Courts of Common Pleas – has recently been found to be lacking by the Superior Court: jury selection outside the presence of a judge. When civil litigators select a jury, they use a process in which the attorneys and the court work together to search for potential hardship, bias and prejudice among the prospective jurors through a series of written and oral questions, known as voir dire (meaning roughly “to tell the truth”). Commonly in civil litigation, the trial judge does directly not participate in this process. Instead, the trial judge will delegate one of his or her staff to handle this sometimes time-consuming endeavor of narrowing down a potential juror pool of hundreds to the 8 or 12 jurors who will ultimately hear the case, along with 1 or 2 alternate jurors.
By: Julia Jacobelli
On January 31, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion which reaffirmed the validity of the hills and ridges doctrine, and provided additional guidance on the scope of the duties of property owners to remove snow and ice from their property.
In Collins v. Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation and Ross’s Home Improvement, Inc., the Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment on the basis of the hills and ridges doctrine. Plaintiff, David Collins, claimed that on January 21, 2014, he slipped and fell on an ice or snow covered sidewalk on property owned by Philadelphia Suburban Development Corporation and leased to Plaintiff’s employer. Continue reading