SAFE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY v. MELODY BERLIN AND MCKEAN HOSE COMPANY

SAFE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY v. MELODY BERLIN AND MCKEAN HOSE COMPANY No. 337 and 417 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 31 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/5/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered December 5, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Civil Division at No. 2008-10588
Before: BENDER, SHOGAN and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Melody Berlin and McKean Hose Company (collectively, the Appellants) appeal the trial court’s entry of a declaratory judgment in favor of Safe Auto Insurance Company (Safe Auto) determining that Safe Auto has no obligation to reimburse the McKean Hose Company for the cost of an emergency rescue it conducted on Berlin’s behalf. The Appellants contend that the language of Safe Auto’s policy is ambiguous and that when interpreted in favor of the insured, the policy mandates the extension of Berlin’s coverage to the expenses the Hose Company incurred. Upon review of the policy’s language, we find no merit in the Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s entry of declaratory judgment.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

JANE DOE v. WYOMING VALLEY HEALTH CARESYSTEM, INC.

JANE DOE v. WYOMING VALLEY HEALTH CARESYSTEM, INC. No. 1390 MDA 2009 2009 PA Super 250 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 12/18/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered July 25, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Civil, No. 4555 of 1996
Before: ORIE MELVIN, GANTMAN, AND CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: GANTMAN, J.
Appellant, Wyoming Valley Health Care System, Inc., appeals from the judgment entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, Jane Doe, following the denial of Appellant’s motion for post-trial relief. We reverse and remand.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

BISHOPS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION v. PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY

BISHOPS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION v. PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE, A MUTUAL COMPANY No. 2275 WDA 2007 and 35 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 225 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/24/2009
	Appeal from the Order December 10, 2007 and Judgment Entered December 11, 2007, In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No. G.D. 05-15366 and GD 05-015366 GD 0-015366
Before: BENDER, BOWES and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
Bishops, Inc., (Bishops) and Penn National Insurance (Penn National) cross-appeal the trial court’s orders granting summary judgment and awarding damages in favor of Bishops limited to the $5000 in coverage afforded by an extra-cost endorsement (the Penn Pac Endorsement) to an all-risks insurance policy that Bishops purchased from Penn National. In its cross-appeal, designated by the parties as primary pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2136(a), Penn National asserts that Bishops’ claim is precluded by the concurrent cause provision of the basic policy to which the Penn Pac Endorsement was added because the damage for which Bishops claimed coverage was jointly caused by flooding. In its cross appeal, Bishops rejoins that this Court has rendered concurrent causation clauses unenforceable, declining to recognize them in the presence of an affirmative grant of coverage for which the insured paid an added premium. Bishops argues further that the Penn Pac Endorsement, which provided coverage for sewer or drain back up, changed the definition of a “covered cause of loss” in the underlying policy to provide coverage to both physical losses contemplated by the endorsement itself and losses sustained by business interruption occasioned by the events that caused the physical loss. Upon review, we find Penn National’s concurrent cause exclusion unenforceable. Moreover, we conclude that Bishops is entitled to coverage under both the Penn Pac Endorsement and the Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage Form of the underlying policy. Accordingly, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand this case for additional proceedings consistent with this disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - LOUIS and ALISON WALKER, Individually and as husband and wife, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY

LOUIS and ALISON WALKER, Individually and as husband and wife, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY No. 3353 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 80 Atlantic: 971 A.2d 521 Filed: 4/27/2009
	Appeal form the Judgment Entered November 19, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil at No(s): October Term, 2005 No. 004355
Before: BOWES, PANELLA, JJ., and McEWEN, P.J.E.
Opinion by: PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Drexel University (“Drexel”), appeals from the judgment entered on November 19, 2007, by the Honorable Matthew D. Carrafiello, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following the denial of Drexel’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). After careful review, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - MARK L. HELPIN v. TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, MARJORIE JEFFCOAT, THOMAS FREITAG AND LAWRENCE M. LEVIN APPEAL OF:

MARK L. HELPIN v. TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, MARJORIE JEFFCOAT, THOMAS FREITAG AND LAWRENCE M. LEVIN APPEAL OF: TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MARK L. HELPIN v. TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, MARJORIE JEFFCOAT, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, THOMAS FREITAG, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITY AND LAWRENCE M. LEVIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL CAPACITIES No. 125 and 307 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 58 Atlantic: 969 A.2d 601 Filed: 4/1/2009
	Appeal from the Order Entered December 13, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No. No. 00702 September Term, 2005
Before: BENDER, PANELLA and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Marjorie Jeffcoat, in her Individual and Official Capacities, Thomas Freitag, in his Official and Personal Capacities, and Lawrence M. Levin, in his Official and Personal Capacities (collectively “Penn”), appeal the judgment entered in favor of Mark L. Helpin (Dr. Helpin) on his claims of breach of contract and constructive discharge after removal from his position as director of the pediatric dental clinic operated by the University at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). Dr. Helpin cross-appeals, contending that the trial court erred in declining to award pre-judgment interest on the award in question, some $4,040,000. Following careful considerations of the parties’ respective arguments, we find that neither demonstrated reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - DOUGLAS L. THOMPSON v. T.J. WHIPPLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

DOUGLAS L. THOMPSON v. T.J. WHIPPLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY No. 324 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 57 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 5/29/2009 Filed: 3/30/2009
	Appeal from the Order of January 17, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Civil Division, at No. 2005-13538.
Before: BOWES, FREEDBERG AND POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Null

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - JEFFREY TINDALL and SILVIA TINDALL, Husband and Wife v. BRAD S. FRIEDMAN, D.O., and MARK SCHWEITZER, M.D. and JEFFERSON IMAGING

JEFFREY TINDALL and SILVIA TINDALL, Husband and Wife v. BRAD S. FRIEDMAN, D.O., and MARK SCHWEITZER, M.D. and JEFFERSON IMAGING and THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL and JEFFERSON HEALTH SYSTEM APPEAL OF: MARK SCHWEITZER, M.D. APPEAL OF: BRAD S. FRIEDMAN, D.O. APPEAL OF: JEFFERSON IMAGING No. 3390, 3391 and 3422 EDA 2004 3494 EDA 2005 2009 PA Super 50 Atlantic: 970 A.2d 1159 Petition for Reargument Denied 6/1/2009 Filed: 3/24/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 3, 2004, in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 4056 January Term, 2001.
Before: BOWES, SHOGAN and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion Opinion by: SHOGAN, J.
Dr. Brad S. Friedman, Dr. Mark Schweitzer, and Jefferson Imaging have filed separate appeals from the judgment entered on a jury award in favor of Jeffrey and Silvia Tindall, and the Tindalls have appealed the trial court’s post-trial entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“n.o.v.”) in favor of Jefferson Imaging. We reverse the entry of judgment n.o.v. in favor of Jefferson Imaging and remand for reinstatement of the judgment against that company. We affirm the jury award in favor of the Tindalls, but remand for recalculation of delay damages imposed on that verdict.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior court - STEVEN WITTRIEN v. GARY AND BRENDA BURKHOLDER

STEVEN WITTRIEN v. GARY AND BRENDA BURKHOLDER No. 454 MDA 2008 2009 PA Super 23 Atlantic: 965 A.2d 1229 Filed: 2/6/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered on February 8, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Civil Division, at No(s). CI-06-04401.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, GANTMAN and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Appellant, Steven Wittrien, appeals from the February 8, 2008 judgment entered against him in his negligence action against Appellees, Gary and Brenda Burkholder. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 9/2/08 - JOYCE A. SCHMIDT, Adminisratrix of the Estate of Erin D. Schmidt, deceased; JOYCE A. SCHMIDT, in her own right; And...

JOYCE A. SCHMIDT, Adminisratrix of the Estate of Erin D. Schmidt, deceased; JOYCE A. SCHMIDT, in her own right; And LINDSAY SCHMIDT, a minor, by her Mother and natural guardian, JOYCE A. SCHMIDT v. BOARDMAN COMPANY, a division of TBC FABRICATION, INC.; BOARDMAN, INC.; TBC FABRICATION, INC.; CORAOPOLIS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT; SINOR MANUFACTURING, INC., n/k/a FREIGHTLINER SPECIALTY VEHICLES, INC., and PETER JEFFRESS and MICHELE JEFFRESS, Individually and on behalf of Their minor Daughters, JOEYLYNNE JEFFRESS and LAUREN JEFFRESS, v. CORAOPOLIS VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT; BOARDMAN COMPANY, A division of TBC FABRICATION, INC.; BOARDMAN, INC.; SINOR MANUFACTURING, INC.; and FREIGHTLINER SPECIALTY VEHICLES, INC.APPEAL OF: SINOR MANUFACTURING, INC., n/k/a FREIGHTLINER SPECIALTY VEHICLES, INC., and FREIGHTLINER SPECIALTY VEHICLES, INC.
No. 905 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 203 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/2/2008
Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 23, 2007,Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,Civil, at No. G.D. 05-7191
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ALLEN, J.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Sinor Manufacturing, Inc., n/k/a Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and Freightliner Specialty Vehicles, Inc. (collectively “Appellants”) appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of various plaintiffs on their claims of strict product liability and infliction of emotional distress.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 7/21/08 - JAMES QUINN v. MICHAEL BUPP

JAMES QUINN v. MICHAEL BUPP
No. No. 317 & 827 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 161 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/21/2008
Appeal from the Order Entered January 17, 2007, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD 05-003069.
Before: BENDER, BOWES AND TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
This appeal and cross-appeal followed the trial court’s determination that Michael Bupp (“Seller”) breached a real estate sales agreement and its pretrial ruling that limited the amount of damages recoverable by James Quinn (“Buyer”). We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Buyer is entitled to specific performance of the agreement, but we reverse in part its decision to restrict the amount of damages that Buyer is entitled to recover. We remand solely for a hearing on damages as further outlined in this adjudication.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want more premium case law ?

Superior Court 7/18/08 - APPEAL OF: SHERRY KASPRZYK

RACQUEL UNDERWOOD, A Minor by and Through Her Mother and Natural Guardian CATHERINE UNDERWOOD, SHAUNA McINNES, and ANDREW DASH v. DANA WIND, An Individual and SHERRY KASPRZYK, An Individual APPEAL OF: DANA WIND APPEAL OF: SHERRY KASPRZYK
No. 1502 & 1701 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 158 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/18/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, No(s): GD 04-007373
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
On November 23, 2003, two pit bull dogs owned by appellant Dana Wind, escaped from the home she rented from her aunt, appellant Sherry Kasprzyk, and attacked the minor child, appellee Racquel Underwood, as well as the good Samaritans, appellees Shauna McInnes and Andrew Dash, who attempted to rescue the child. A jury entered awards of $65,000, $85,000, and $80,000, respectively, in favor of the appellees. On August 8, 2007, appellants’ post-trial motions were denied, and appellees’ request for delay damages was granted: Underwood was awarded an additional $8,724.25; McInnes was awarded $11,408.62; and Dash was awarded $10,737.53. On August 17, 2007, an aggregate judgment of $260,870.40 was entered in favor of appellees, that amount representing the total of the appellees’ awards and delay damages.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want inexpensive, comprehensive state & federal case law? - click here
-----------------------------------------------------


The dangerous propensities of an animal may be established by a single incident of an attack on a human being. You may determine prior knowledge of the possible dangerous propensities of an animal by direct and/or circumstantial evidence.
In order to prove the vicious propensities of an animal, actual notice is not necessary. It is sufficient if one knew or should have known that the animal was a probable cause of harm.
Now, I told you that the law is a violation -- an unexcused violation of the dog law is negligence per se. And the dog law talks about dogs getting out. It used to be referred to as dogs running at large. Now it’s a different thing, but it’s the same concept. They need to be confined or on a leash or a chain. And it also defines what dangers dogs are and the negligence of keeping a dangerous dog. Pennsylvania’s dog law, which is a state law in effect at the time this harm occurred, provided in
part that it is unlawful for the owner or keeper of any dog to fail to keep at all times such dog confined within the premises of the owner. This state law dictates the duty of care required of someone in the same situation as Defendants. If you find that there was a violation of this state law, you must find Defendant negligent as a matter of law.
However, before you answer that, you need to determine whether the negligence was a factual cause of the injuries. Now, that’s with respect to the dog getting out. The Pennsylvania dog law, which is a state law in effect at the time this harm occurred, provided in part that when a dog owner’s dog has inflicted severe injury on a human being without provocation, the dangerous propensities of the animal are established by a single incident of attacking the human being. This state law dictates the duty of care required of someone in the same situation as the Defendants.
Pennsylvania’s dog law, a state law in effect at the time, provides in part that the owner or keeper of any dog that aggressively attacks and causes severe injury or death of any human through the intentional, reckless or negligent conduct of the dog’s owner has violated the Pennsylvania dog law.
This state law dictates the duty of care required of someone in the same situation as the Defendants. And again, in all three of those instances you need to find that the fact -- that that violation was a factual cause of the injury.
Now, I talked to you about -- in the law remember I told you it says an unexcused violation? An excuse means a reasonable explanation for why the act occurred acceptable to a reasonable person under all the facts and circumstances in the case. And it’s the burden of the person offering that excuse to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

Superior Court 4/28/08 - FRANCIS A. SOPKO AND ALLISON LAMB v. JOHN R. MURRAY

FRANCIS A. SOPKO AND ALLISON LAMB v. JOHN R. MURRAY
No. 718 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 87 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 4/29/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered April 30, 2007in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,Civil Division, at No. GD-03-024613.
Before: MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, John Murray, appeals from the judgment entered following a jury verdict and the trial court’s award of delay damages to Appellees, Francis Sopko and Allison Lamb. Upon review, we affirm.

Superior Court 3/13/2008 - LAWRENCE T. CHRISTIAN AND DEBRA E. CHRISTIAN v. JOHN YANOVIAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CUMBERLAND MASONRY, INC.

LAWRENCE T. CHRISTIAN AND DEBRA E. CHRISTIAN v. JOHN YANOVIAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CUMBERLAND MASONRY, INC.
No. 829 MDA 2007 2008 PA Super 40 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 3/13/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered May 4, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Civil Division, at No. 2005-SU-01398-Y21.
Before: STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN and BENDER, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellant, John Yanoviak, appeals from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, following a non-jury verdict in favor of Appellees, Lawrence and Debra Christian, in the amount of $22,200. On appeal, Appellant claims the trial court erred in determining the proper measure of damages for the removal of trees from a private residence. We affirm.