Carrie A. S. Kennedy joined Connor, Weber & Oberlies in 2019 as the head of the Estate and Trust department in the Paoli, PA office. Her practice focuses on Estate Planning, Estate and Trust Administration, Elder Law, Special Needs Planning, Guardianships and Adoptions.
Waiver of Attorney Work Product and Attorney-Client Privilege Protections
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
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.
Can real estate buyer waive seller’s disclosure…Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law
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
Pennsylvania Superior Court: No Deference Where Trial Judge Fails to Observe Voir Dire
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.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Affirms $1.68 Million Dollar Award for CWO client
In the most recent chapter of litigation spanning more than 23 years, on September 27, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a subcontractor’s $1.68 million dollar award entered pursuant to the Contractor Subcontractor Payment Act. Monica Reynolds, co-counsel to the subcontractor, has represented the subcontractor since 2002 in its efforts to pierce the corporate veil and collect its $200,000 arbitration award obtained under the Contractor Subcontractor Payment Act (“CASPA”) in 1998. Continue reading
Six CWO Law Attorneys selected as 2017 Top Lawyers by Main Line Today
This year we were honored to have six of our Attorneys selected as the Top Lawyers on the Main Line by Main Line Today. Attorneys are nominated for this distinction by peer balloting and then vetted by the Main Line Today editors.
Continue reading
Redesigned Website for Improved Communication
Announcing a new look to our website! We recently completed a redesign of our website to better communicate with and serve you.
You will notice a more modern look with better access through your mobile devices, including tablets and smartphones.
We plan to update our news and articles on a regular basis to keep you informed on our law firm and a variety of legal issues that we hope you will find relevant and helpful.
PA Supreme Court: Minor Deviations from Underinsured Motorist Coverage Rejection Form
Pennsylvania Supreme Court: very minor deviations from underinsured motorist coverage rejection form permitted
In Ford v. American States Insurance Company, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently clarified that “de minimis,” or minor, deviations from the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage rejection form set out in Section 1731 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law can nevertheless “specifically comply” with Section 1731. Ford v. American States Ins. Co., No. 13 WAP 2016, 2017 WL 694744 (Pa. February 22, 2017).
Section 1731 requires that insurers obtain the signature of any insured wishing to reject UIM coverage on a form that contains specific language dictated by the General Assembly. Continue reading