Marsuelx Envtl. Techs v. Selip, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43803 (M.D. Pa. 2017) – The plaintiff’s amended complaint sounded in breach of contract and strict liability. Matthew filed a motion to dismiss the strict liability claim and argued it was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The plaintiff argued the doctrine was inapplicable under the “other property” exception. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument and determined the strict liability claim was barred because this exception is inapplicable to property owned by a third party.
QBE Insurance Corp. v. OK Café, Inc., 2016 Pa.Super. 2005 (Pa.Super 2016) — In this insurance coverage matter, Matt argued before the Pennsylvania Superior Court on behalf of QBE Insurance Company to uphold an order granting his summary judgment motion before the trial court. He convinced the appellate court that an assault and battery exclusion in QBE’s policy applied to a claim for injuries that occurred during a shooting outside a bar. This involved the important issue of the impact, if any, of negligence allegations in the underlying complaint that may take the claim outside the scope of the exclusion.
Marsulex Environmental Technologies v. Selip S.P.A., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35101 (M.D. Pa. 2016) — In this breach of contract action involving an allegedly defective pipe, Matthew R. Shindell’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ strict liability claim under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) was granted. Specifically, he argued that the economic loss doctrine precludes the plaintiffs from pursuing a strict liability claim when the alleged damages do not involve any personal injuries.
Lynch v. Gander Mountain Company, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121322 (M.D. Pa. 2013) — In this product liability matter, Matthew R. Shindell filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s strict liability claim that was based upon the Restatement (Second) of Torts, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, Shindell argued that federal courts applying Pennsylvania law to product liability cases should look to sections 1 and 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts. The court agreed, and dismissed the plaintiff’s strict liability claim based upon the Second Restatement.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33156 (E.D. Pa. 2012) — On behalf of his client, a commercial printing facility, Matthew R. Shindell filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for fraud and conversion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, Shindell argued that the gist of the action doctrine bars these claims because they essentially duplicate a breach of contract claim. Moreover, the success of these tort claims were wholly dependant on the terms of the contract. In addition, it was argued these claims were barred by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires that allegations of fraud be plead with particularity. After an oral argument, the court agreed with arguments and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for fraud and conversion.
Liberty Insurance Corporation v. PGT Trucking, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68444 (W.D. Pa. 2011) — This case involved a retrospective insurance premium arrangement by which our client, Liberty Insurance Corporation, administered a workers’ compensation program for PGT Trucking, Inc. The insurer sought a declaration of rights under the insurance policies provided to PGT. PGT filed a counterclaim against the insurer, which sounded in breach of contract, bad faith under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8371, and breach of a fiduciary duty. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the insurer filed a motion to dismiss the bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty claims. The court granted this motion and found there was no independent cause of action for a breach of fiduciary duty in cases involving retrospective premium arrangements. In addition, the bad faith claim was dismissed because the counterclaim failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim against the insurer.
Trabbold v. Mike’s Hard Lemonade, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57329 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2011) — In this product liability action, the court granted our client Anchor Glass Container Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence, which indicated the product at issue was defective when it left the defendant’s control.
Katz v. St. Mary Medical Center, 816 A.2d. 1125 (Pa. Super. 2003) — In this medical malpractice case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.5 does not require a defendant-physician to submit an expert report prior to trial because his opinions were not acquired in anticipation of litigation. However, if a defendant-physician does intend on rendering expert testimony at the time of trial, his opinions may be explored via oral deposition or written discovery requests.