Non-Owned, Regularly-Used Car Exclusion Allowed in Insurance Contracts

by | Dec 10, 2021 | General Liability and Casualty, Legal News

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that automobile insurance carriers are permitted to maintain a clause in their policies that states that the carrier has no obligation to insure a policy-holder who is driving a car that he does not own, but uses on a regular basis, in the event of an accident. Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 809 A.2d 204 (2002).

This issue has been hotly-debated in Pennsylvania. Many oppose this exclusion, arguing that to exclude coverage when a policy holder is driving a car that he does not own, but regularly uses violates public policy. The Court disagreed and held that such a clause comports with public policy. See also Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gisler, 806 A.2d 854 (2002) (holding that the regularly used, non-owned car clause comported with the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law).

According to the Court, voiding this exclusion would actually frustrate public policy concerns by increasing costs of automobile insurance. The Court reasoned that in the absence of such an exclusion, insurers would be forced to underwrite unknown risks that policy-holders have not disclosed and for which policy-holders have not paid.

Certificate of Merit Requirement Extended to Federal Cases in Pennsylvania

by | Dec 9, 2021 | General Liability and Casualty, Legal News

In Scaramuzza v. Sciolla, 345 F.Supp. 2d 508 (E.D. Pa. 2004), the Plaintiff in this legal malpractice case did not timely file a Certificate of Merit. The Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. The Plaintiff argued that the rule should not be applied in Federal Court since no Federal Court had held that Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 was substantive law. Judge Baylson disagreed. He noted that the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already extended a similar rule to diversity cases in New Jersey. In Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F. 3d 154, 158-61 (3d. Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey’s affidavit of merit requirement must be applied as substantive state law.

Despite this, Judge Baylson held that dismissal was not appropriate. He found that the Plaintiff met the requirements set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 3051, although Plaintiff did file a Certificate of Merit five months after the deadline. Judge Baylson found that the Defendants were not prejudiced by the delay since discovery had not yet commenced. Furthermore, he found that Plaintiff’s excuse for not filing a Certificate of Merit was excusable since the Third Circuit had not yet applied Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 as substantive law.

<< Back to list page

10 Attorneys Selected to 2020 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers

10 Attorneys Selected to 2020 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers

by | Jun 5, 2020 | Community

Each year, on a state-by-state basis, Super Lawyers selects attorneys using peer nominations and evaluations along with third party research. Each candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement, and those selected represent the top five percent of the total lawyers in each state.

In 2020, five OBR partners were selected to PA Super Lawyers & five associates were selected to the Rising Stars list.

PA Super Lawyers:
* Top 100 PA & Philadelphia

Dan Ryan

Anthony P. DeMichele

Heather Hansen

Michael O. Pitt

Marshall L. Schwartz

Brett M. Littman

PA Rising Stars:

    Jaime N. Johnson

    Lisa J. Peters

    Sarah L. Holzhauer

    Defense Verdict in Pressure Wound Matter on Behalf of Hospital

    by | Oct 11, 2019 | Chester County, Hospital Liability, Successes

    Marshall L. Schwartz recently obtained a defense verdict on behalf of a hospital in a four-day jury trial in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The case involved allegations that the defendant hospital failed to rotate, turn and reposition the patient during his hospitalization, and as a result, the patient developed a stage IV pressure ulcer.

    The case involved a patient that was admitted to the hospital with complaints of a headache, confusion, and weakness. Imaging identified masses on his brain, and the patient underwent several brain surgeries. The patient remained in critical condition at the hospital for approximately three months while he recovered. During this time, he developed several medical issues including the development of pressure ulcers.

    The defense argued that although the patient developed pressure ulcers, it was not the result of any negligent action on behalf of the medical providers at the hospital but that it was unavoidable as a result of the patient’s critical, life threatening illness, multiple comorbidities and his past medical history.
    After a brief deliberation, the jury returned a verdict, finding that the defendant hospital was not negligent.