The Superior Court held that Cooper’s statement to an insurance representative–“[Burns] was a liar who could not be trusted”–was sufficient to establish “actual damages in a defamation action.
The Appellate Division affirmed an order granting summary judgment. Because the plaintiff was a “special employee,” the exclusive remedy for his workplace injury was workers’ compensation. Moreover, the defendant’s alleged conduct was not excepted from workers’ compensation because the conduct was not sufficiently egregious to rise to the level of intentional wrong.
In a private action under Title IX in M.S. v. Susquehana Twp. Sch. Dist., plaintiff sought damages for injuries suffered as a result of harassment from her assailant principal. In order to sustain the claim, plaintiff had to plead that an “appropriate person” who had knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing failed to take corrective action. The 3rd Circuit held … Read more
In this case, involving multi-county baby powder litigation, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court abused its discretion when it barred the plaintiff’s’ experts opinions on causation. The Court held that the experts’ opinions were based on sound methodology applied to data upon which experts in their field may reasonably rely. The trial court … Read more
The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s declaratory judgment and held that, because the Franks’ removal of a vehicle from their multi-vehicle insurance changed the stacked amount of underinsured motorist coverage, under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, State Farm was required to provide a new stacking waiver.
The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order, which granted summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations based on “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment of the cause of death.”
In Sun Chemical Corp. v. Fike Corp. & Suppression Systems Inc., the Supreme Court responded to a certified quzoomestion from the 3rd Circuit, and in so doing dealt a blow to tort-reform advocates. The Supreme Court held that the state’s Products Liabilities Act — which allows for only basic tort damages — does not preempt … Read more
The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that, because the defendant did not properly preserve an objection during a deposition, the trial court erred when it had granted the defendant’s motion in lime.
The Appellate Division held in Bandler v. Landry’s, Inc., that the Casino Control Act does not preempt a private cause of action for false advertising under the Consumer Fraud Act.
The Supreme Court held that application of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) to the judiciary and its employees infringes upon this Court’s ability to administer the courts, promulgate rules and policies, and supervise its employees, and, thus, violates separation of powers principles.