Philadelphia Top Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Philadelphia personal injury lawyer, I was interested to see a recent state Supreme Court ruling removing a barrier between public workers and adequate compensation for injuries they suffered in car crashes that were no fault of their own. In Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities et al., the state high court ruled that Sugarcreek Borough police officer Frank Heller should be permitted to claim underinsured motorist coverage for an accident he suffered while at work, even though he was also collecting workers' compensation insurance. Heller's department was insured by the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities, which had an express exclusion for any employee eligible to claim workers' compensation. In this decision, the state Supreme Court found that this violates public policy and cannot be enforced.

Heller suffered injuries that his complaint described as "severe and disabling" on Halloween of 2002. He successfully claimed workers' compensation and recovered the limit of the at-fault driver's policy, but this was just $25,000. This was inadequate for his injuries, so he notified the borough's auto insurer of a potential UIM claim. The insurer denied it because of the policy exclusion against UIM coverage for workers eligible for workers' compensation, so Heller sued for a declaratory judgment saying this was against public policy. He received it in 2007; in fact, the court noted that this exclusion was expressly illegal until 1993. The Commonwealth Court reversed the decision, finding that in the absence of a specific law or caselaw, the conflicting policy considerations should favor the insurer. One judge dissented, saying the exclusion prevents workers' compensation insurers from subrogating UIM benefits and injured workers from collecting fully.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review only the issue of whether the exclusion violates public policy -- and eventually found that it does. On appeal, Heller (supported by amicus Pennsylvania Association for Justice) argued that the borough's UIM coverage is "illusory" because nearly all borough employees are eligible for workers' compensation. The court started its analysis by noting that Pennsylvania's auto insurance laws are aimed at cost containment. However, it noted, cost containment is not enough to allow insurers to deny coverage for which the insured has contracted and paid. In this case, the borough voluntarily paid for UIM coverage, which it could have opted not to buy. However, the high court said, the coverage is unlikely to ever attach because of the exclusion that covers basically all borough employees. Thus, it agreed that the coverage is illusory and that the insurer gets a windfall by declining to provide it. To allow this would contravene the intention of Pennsylvania insurance law, it said. Thus, it found the exclusion contrary to public policy and reversed the lower court.

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I applaud this ruling. In essence, the high court said that insurers may not charge premiums for insurance and refuse to provide it, even when they write that refusal directly into their policies. The presence of an express written exclusion might normally make the court sympathetic to the insurer -- but in this case, the fact that every borough employee can get workers' compensation benefits means the exclusion functions to negate the purpose of the insurance. By doing this, the insurer was charging for something it knew it would never have to provide, and that's what the court found was against public policy. As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I doubt that consumers or courts would put up with this kind of fraud in another context, and I applaud the court for not allowing it in insurance, where denying benefits is very much the path to profit.

Continue reading "Pennsylvania Supreme Court Outlaws Insurance Policy Exclusion Forbidding UIM Coverage - Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities" »

As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I was interested to see a Third Circuit decision that could change how federal courts in Pennsylvania determine jurisdiction in personal injury cases involving more than one state. In Washington v. Hovensa LLC, Gloria Washington sued Hovensa and Triangle Construction and Maintenance, Inc., after Triangle employees working on Hovensa property in the Virgin Islands injured her. Washington owned a home in Texas but was back in the islands for work. The district court dismissed her suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, saying she was properly a Virgin Islands resident, not a Texas resident. The Third reversed that and remanded it, saying the district court did not give enough weight to her intent to return to Texas.

Washington worked for Sabine Storage Operations, a Texas company that sent her to the islands to work as a pipe inspector for an indefinite period of time. She had been born in St. Croix and had family in the islands, who she saw regularly while she was there. She owned a home in Baytown, Texas and had rented an apartment in the islands. She had not returned to Texas for several months before she drove onto Hovensa's property, where she was assigned to work at a Hovensa refinery. She drove her rental car past a site where Triangle employees were conducting sandblasts that she said were improperly supervised and used faulty equipment. She sued Triangle and Hovensa in Virgin Islands federal court, based on diversity of citizenship. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of diversity, arguing that Washington was a VI citizen, not a Texas citizen. The district court granted this, overriding an affidavit by Washington stating her intent to return to Texas. Washington appealed, repeating her intent to return to Texas when the assignment was over.

The Third Circuit started by noting that caselaw requires courts to presume in favor of an old domicile over a new one, although the person seeking diversity (in this case, Washington) still has the burden of proof. It's not clear that the district court took that into account, the Third said, despite the list of facts weighing in favor of finding that Washington lived in Texas: home ownership, driver's license, doctor, vehicle registration, mobile phone and bank account. The Third acknowledged that Washington's affidavit was "self-serving," in that it could easily have been engineered to give Washington the outcome she preferred. But it did not see why the district court relied on the Third Circuit's own 1968 decision in Korn v. Korn, a decision that said affidavits must be disregarded as self-serving -- but only when they are contradicted by inconsistent behavior. Because Washington's behavior has not been inconsistent, it said, the district court was wrong to disregard her affidavit. It also wrongly disregarded certain evidence, the court noted. Thus, it reversed the district court and remanded the case.

This case is mostly about jurisdiction, not the injury to Washington, so one might wonder why a Philadelphia accident lawyer like me would be interested. As it happens, where a lawsuit is heard can make a big difference. In this case, because the Virgin Islands is a relatively small community, Washington might feel that her chances of objective treatment are better in the federal courts than in Islands courts, whose judges might socialize with business leaders from Hovensa and Triangle. Federal court might also be more advantageous if federal law offers causes of action or rules of court that state law does not have. When the connection is strong, as with Washington's connection to Texas, this practice can offer injured people an opportunity to make the strongest case they can to hold the negligent party financially and legally accountable.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Rules Courts Must Consider Intent to Return to Another State When Deciding Jurisdiction - Washington v. Hovensa LLC" »

As a Philadelphia accident lawyer, I was disappointed to see a recent federal appeals court ruling denying an injured man a chance to pursue fair compensation from the company he says is to blame. In Roth v. Noralfco, David Roth sued a chemical supply company for various causes of action claiming it had a duty to design safer acid tank cars. Roth had a job at a York, Penn. paper company that included unloading tanks of sulfuric acid sent by Noralfco by rail. He suffered chemical burns to his face in 2004 when he attempted to unload a tank that was under pressure. The federal trial court granted summary judgment to Noralfco, saying the bulk of the claims are expressly preempted by the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

The HMTA regulates interstate commerce involving hazardous materials, giving buyers and sellers uniform regulations even between states. A section of the HMTA explicitly says that "Unless authorized by another law of the United States, a law... of a State... that is not substantively the same as a provision of this chapter... is preempted." It then goes on to list the areas of regulation that are preempted, which include what is a hazardous material, how the materials are packed and labeled, their shipping documents, notice of any spills and their shipping containers. The Third Circuit found that all of Roth's tort claims fall under the HMTA's purview, and were thus expressly preempted by the law. It dismissed Roth's arguments that his job was not "in commerce" and thus the HMTA did not apply, saying unloading is expressly part of the HMTA. Thus, it upheld the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to Noralfco.

This decision is disappointing, because it means Roth cannot pursue compensation for what sound like some very serious injuries. In making this ruling, the Third Circuit did not rule on the merits of the case; it simply said there was no case because federal law has taken away the state-law remedy available to him. This leaves Roth and anyone else involved in shipping hazardous materials without recourse if they happen to be injured by dangerous materials like sulfuric acid while they are at work. As a Philadelphia injury lawyer, I believe our society can and should do better for the people who do this kind of dangerous job and rely on supervisors, colleagues or suppliers to stay safe.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Rules Workplace Accident Lawsuit Preempted by Federal Law - Roth v. Noralfco" »

A court is hearing testimony this week after a teacher has been pummeled and injured by a student at a Philadelphia alternative school. According to reports, two older students are being held for trial on charges that they attacked their teacher at the Excel Academy. Excel is an alternative school in Northeast Philadelphia.

After the alleged attack, the teacher had to be hospitalized and was eventually released in good health. While the defendants remain in custody, Prosecutor Erica Rebstock says the attack by the students that wrongfully injured the teacher was unprovoked.

The defendants, 20-year-old Terrell Carter and 19-year-old Bryan Pressley allegedly attacked the teacher who was returning to class from lunch. Terrell Carter "comes from behind, reaches into his lunch bag. The teacher removes his hand and then Terrell Carter punches him very forefully in the back of the knee." Carter's attorneys are saying his client will plead not guilty, while Pressley's attorney's declined to comment to CBS Philadelphia yesterday evening.

Situations were workers are put in harms way at work needlessly and suffer wrongful injury on the job are both common and unfortunate. It is important that if this has happened to you or a loved one that you find out what you may be entitled to. Contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer or a Philadelphia accident lawyer immediately.

When it comes to work injuries and accidents as well as occupational hazards, the coal miner has become a poster child. This week, the Philadelphia Inquirer went six miles deep to report from a coal mine in southwestern Pennsylvania, the kind of many Philadelphia residents and US citizens forget even exists. Pennsylvania is still quite the coal producer and was in fact the fourth largest U.S. coal producer in 2008.

Pennsylvania is at the forefront as coal, wind, and solar power battle it out to become the key energy industries of the future. In the mean time, several US workers in Pennsylvania and the surround states go to work as coal miners, power plant workers, solar panel and wind turbine builders, etc.

Today's challenge of improving the coal industry and creating alternative energy sources, has put some US workers back to work, but it is important for us to remember the day to day occupational hazards the men and women in the coal and energy industry can face. While environmental and emissions regulations continue to be scrutinized, it is also important for us to remember our country's energy workers and how we can keep them as safe as can be from work related accidents and occupational hazards.

If you or a loved one has sustained a work injury of has had an accident in the workplace, call a Philadelphia injury lawyer today. A Philadelphia injury lawyer can further on advise you on the next steps to take towards getting the compensation you're entitled to.

That's just what one firefighter just a few hours North of Philadelphia has just done. Richard LaPiedra, 42, is a well known Staten Island firefighter, previously heralded for his many years with the firedepartment and many heroic feats during his career has just sewed the FDNY. Recently, Richard became injured while on a call. He suffered injuries after tripping over a mound of pot growing paraphernalia while fighting an apartment blaze.

Richard LaPiedra was able to legally sue the Fire Department because he alleged that his injuries were caused by a violation of statutes, namely, the illegal marijuana growing operation and the equipment used for it, according to his injury lawyer. The injuries are allegedly career ending in nature, and for that, LaPiedra could receive a hefty some upon winning the case. "Its devastating to him" LaPiedra's lawyer said on Thursday.
After the fall, LaPiedra is said to have suffered disabling shoulder and spine injuries. Aside from the FDNY, the court papers also named Robert Pennachio, the owner of the building as a defendant.

Hundreds of thousands of workers become injured on the job each year or suffer occupational injuries. Public servants are no exception, and regardless of the nature of their work, some of their injuries may still be grounds for receiving compensation. If you or a loved one has been injured on the job, contact a Philadelphia injury lawyer today. A Philadelphia injury lawyer can help you understand your rights.

A recent study released Tuesday by a Massachusetts-based nonprofit that supports renewable energy development has found that Philadelphia residents are more concerned than US residents in general on average. Fracking is a term used for hydraulic fracturing as a process for the extraction of natural gas. Studies have shown that his process is harmful to the environment and can contaminate public drinking water.

The state survey was conducted among 403 adults from November 26-30 amidst a national survey conducted among 1,012 adults. Philadelphia residents were most likely to say they are "very concerned" about the health threats, personal injury, and damage that fracking can cause. Pam Solo, founder and president of the Civil Society Institute said concern about fracking "illustrates the point that Americans don't think of an energy source as cheap or clean if there is a hidden price in terms of safe drinking water and human health." Several Philadelphia residents seem to be on this page when it comes to fracking.

It is unfortunate that in the Philadelphia area as well as across the world, several processes used by big business put public health at risk. Philadelphia Injury lawyers remind us that this year's environmental disaster with BP, for example, demonstrates how a corporation damaged the environment, caused personal injury, and put the lives and lively hoods of humans at risk. For this, BP had to pay out richly in settlements. If you believe you or a loved one has been the victim of injury due to fracking or another environmental hazard caused by big business, find out what you're entitled to by contacting a Philadelphia injury lawyer.

An accident on a Pottstown school rooftop has left one roofing worker dead while leaving another worker injured. The two men sustained their injuries while working at the Hill School at Chestnut and Sheridan streets at approximately 11 a.m. on the morning of November 1st. The two workers, whose names have not yet been released, were employed by Richard L. Sensenig Roofing and Industrial Metals of Ephrata according to reports.

As the two men began to perform routine maintenance on the building, the roof on top of the school's power plant collapsed. Both workers fell through, leaving them trapped inside a confined space for hours. Eventually, company cranes were able to lift them out under the supervision of the Pottstown Fire Department. While unfortunately, one worker was deceased upon excavation, another worker was taken to a Reading area hospital according to reports with serious injuries.

It is an unfortunate reality that accidents like this happen every day as all occupations come with their own unique occupational hazards. If you have experienced the loss of a loved one through a similar accident, it is essential that you contact a Philadephia accident laywer to ensure that you are covered when it comes to receiving all that you are entitled to. If you have sustained an injury while working, ensure your rights are protected by contacting a Philadelphia injury lawyer.

On Saturday September 11, a Philadelphia bus accident took the lives of four passengers. The driver, John Tomaszewski, allegedly missed an exit while driving 28 passengers from Philadelphia to Toronto, Canada. In an attempt to get back on to the highway, Tomaszewski used a personal GPS device - not one owned by the bus company - to find his way. Unfortunately, he overlooked a number of warning signs about an upcoming railroad bridge with a clearance of just 10' 9" (the bus was 13' 1"). Instead of winding up back on I-81, the bus smashed into the overpass. Four people died in the crash, including two teenagers, a preacher from Malaysia, and an Indian computer technician. All told, 20 passengers suffered injuries, and Tomaszewski himself suffered a serious head injury.

Although most Philadelphia auto and truck accidents do not involve exotic forms of transportation, like double-decker buses, many do involve driver distraction. Indeed, according to an array of independent surveys, distracted drivers - those engaged with devices like GPS units and Bluetooths - can be many more times likely to cause injury collisions than their non-distracted counterparts. Some studies suggest that driving while on a cell phone - even using a hands-free headset - can potentially be more dangerous than driving under the influence in Philadelphia, believe it or not.

In Traffic, journalist and author Tom Vanderbilt points out that a lot of a conventional wisdom about what causes things like Philadelphia auto accidents - and what can prevent them - may be misguided. Specifically, Vanderbilt and others have argued that officials need to improve human-driven communication among drivers - and to wean drivers away from relying on technologies like GPS devices and cell phones. We must become more aware of the road and of the inherent dangers of captaining a multi-ton motor vehicle at high speeds.

If you or someone you love has been hurt in a Philadelphia truck accident, car accident, or bus accident, you may greatly benefit from a consultation with an experienced Philadelphia personal injury attorney.

Continue reading "Philadelphia Bus Accident Kills Four on September 11" »

A tragic and freak football accident has claimed the life of 15-year-old Quadaar White. Like many Philadelphia personal injury cases, the accident happened suddenly and out of nowhere. On August 24th, White had been playing football with his squad, the Greater 69th Street Wildcats, when his head accidently struck another player's knee during team practice. Although White had been wearing full protection - including pads and helmet - he suffered a neck injury that rendered him instantly unconscious. By the time police and paramedics arrived on the scene, White had no pulse, and he was not breathing. He died at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia just a few days after suffering his injury.

This terrible situation illustrates a basic truth about Philadelphia personal injury matters - they tend to strike out of nowhere and leave victims and their families overwhelmed, confused and hard pressed to know how to move on. The trauma can be doubly painful if someone else - or some corporation - caused or contributed to the Philadelphia car accident, medical malpractice, personal injury or whatever. In such a case, in addition to dealing with the injury and/or accidental death, victims and their relatives must also deal with the logistics of having to seek compensation and justice from the party or parties who caused or contributed to the Philadelphia personal injury.

Given how vulnerable and overwhelmed most potential claimants feel, it's almost always a good idea for victims and/or their relatives to consult with an experienced Philadelphia personal injury attorney - not just to get due compensation but also to take care of the legal logistics, so they do not consume your thoughts, and so you can go about the business of rehabilitation and taking care of your family without feeling like you are "dropping the ball" or allowing the person or party who caused harm to you to escape without paying dues.

Do you need legal assistance with your Philadelphia personal injury case?

Continue reading "Tragic Philadelphia Accident Takes Life of 15-Year-Old Upper Darby Boy" »

An animal rights group from California, In Defense of Animals, is challenging a Pennsylvania corner over his ruling that the death of circus worker Andrew Anderton was an accident. Luzerne County coroner John Corcoran ruled that Dumbo, a female African elephant, accidentally kicked his handler, killing him, while the Irem Shrine Circus was performing in Wilkes Barre last week. The animal rights group claims that while the handler's death may have been an accident, the kick was not.

According to an article appearing in the online edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Joyce Poole, spokeswoman for In Defense of Animals, said in her letter to the Pennsylvania coroner:

"With a body weighing six tons elephants are extremely careful and rarely do anything by accident. They have superior sense of hearing, an incredible sense of smell and they are able to detect minute vibrations via their feet. Dumbo would have known that Anderson was approaching her from behind; she would have been able to smell, feel and hear him."

In its letter, the animal right's group makes the argument that confining and chaining elephants creates stress that leads the animals to attack. The group claims that since 1990, elephant attacks in the U.S. have killed 14 people and injured 135.

Depending on your stance on animal rights, this story may seem silly or not, but the elephant is unlikely to be charged, To protect the legal rights of the deceased circus handler's family, Philadelphia personal injury lawyers would have to investigate the exact circumstances surrounding the accident as well as workplace safety issues and circus policies and practices that might have led to this tragic personal injury accident. Philadelphia personal injury attorneys are experts in digging through the emotional hysteria that surrounds fatal workplace accident to determine the facts and the fault of the accident.