Many insurance carriers seek to use independent agents to market and sell their policies, but the legal question of whether these agents are considered representatives of the carrier can significantly impact liability. Courts consider several elements in determining...
When “Magic Words” are Nothing More Than a Spectacle
In Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 349 A.3d 835 (Pa. 2026), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently revisited the admissibility of expert evidence pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. The Court had to explore whether, in the event that expert testimony is...
District Court Holds Firearm Accident Inside Vehicles Triggers UIM Coverage
The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Allmerica Financial Benefit Insurance Company, et al. v. Heidi Hunt, et al., Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-02767, 2 025 WL 3634209 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025) recently expanded the requirements for underinsured...
All Good-Faith Attempts at Service of Process Considered
On November 13, 2025, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in Vargas v. United Modular Enterprise, 2025 LX 598559, 2025 WL 3172328 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2025), sustained the preliminary objections of United Modular Enterprise (“UME”) and William Fertsch (“Mr....
Plaintiff’s Choice of Expert: A Potential Vehicle for Early Disposition
In a recent decision, Vakili v. MTD Products Inc., 2025 WL 3141940 (M.D. Pa. 2025), the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in deciding on a Daubert motion and a motion for summary judgment, precluded the plaintiff’s expert on the...
Fair Share and Fallout: How a Procedural Misstep Derailed a Defense Verdict
In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a defense verdict and remanded for a new trial after holding that the trial court erred by allowing settled defendants to remain in a medical negligence action despite the absence of any evidence that they...
Continual Denial
Superior Court Confirms Re-Denial of Coverage Unnecessary Absent New or Novel Information In a recent slip opinion in Jill Sherwood v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 17 WDA 2025, 2025 WL 3241349 (Pa. Super. 2025) the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered whether an...
Infrequent and Restricted Use of a Company Vehicle Does Not Trigger Regular Use
In a growing progression of cases analyzing the “Regular Use” exclusion in auto insurance policies, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in All State Fire and Casualty Insurance Company v. Tomasic, Civil Action No. 2:25-CV-418, 2025 WL 3165663...
Insurance Exchanges versus Mutual Insurance Company Analysis on Citizenship
When your out-of-state insurer-client is sued in state court, you may be tempted remove to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Yet even if your insurer-client is incorporated and headquartered out-of-state, determining whether you may remove the suit to federal...