Skip to main content
Stewart C Crawford Jr.

Stewart Crawford’s Legal Cases

14 total


  • State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Christian Soxman, No. 2659 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    75 Pa.C.S 1720 Does Not Bar PIP Subrogation
    Description:
    Successfully argued that personal injury protection and medical payment subrogation is indeed allowed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All three justices of the Superior Court unequivocally acknowledged that 75 Pa. C.S. § 1720 would not prohibit PIP subrogation provided that we do not “raid” the injured claimant’s tort recovery.
  • State Farm v. American Independent Ins & Bechara et al, C.A. No. N10C-08-137(Del. Super. Ct. 2011)

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Property Damage Subrogation Statute of Limitations is Three Years, Not Two
    Description:
    Successfully argued that the statute of limitations for automobile property damage subrogation claims in the state of Delaware is three years, not two as was commonly believed by the Courts.
  • State Farm v. State of Delaware (Department of Correction), C.A. No. 09C-07-030 (Del. Super. Ct. 2011)

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    No Expert Needed to Establish PIP Payments
    Description:
    Successfully argued that a PIP carrier in Delaware is not required to introduce expert medical testimony in a subrogation claim to authenticate the reasonable necessity of the claims.
  • State Farm vs. Muhlenberg Township (C.A. No. 10-11952, Berks County Court of Common Pleas; November 1, 2010).

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Political Subdivision Tort Immunity Doesnt Bar Subrogation
    Description:
    Successfully argued that subrogation against a municipality in Pennsylvania is indeed allowed, notwithstanding the anti-subrogation interpretations of the political subdivision tort claims act.
  • Millville Mutual v. Ford Motor Company, (C.A. No. 2010-02704, Lackawana County Court of Common Pleas; April 2010).

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    (not available)
    Description:
    Filed one of the first punitive damages subrogation lawsuits in the nation; this related to the defective manufacturing of a cruise control deactivation switch. Settled for confidential terms.
  • Allstate Insurance vs. Toyota (C.A. No. 09-50138, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas; June 9, 2009).

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Economic Loss Doctrine Not Applicable to Subrogated Insurance Carrier
    Description:
    Successfully argued that a subrogated insurance carrier could recover in tort (rather than in contract) because the carrier lacked privity, the uniform commercial code did not recognize a remedy, and it is improper to employ contract remedies to abrogate equitable subrogation rights. Our model has since been followed in California, Florida, and Oregon.
  • Allstate Insurance Company v. Sussman Automotive & Hyundai, C.A. No. 0708926-30 (Pa. C.C.P. Bucks 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Spoilation But Circumstantial Evidence Allowed to Demonstrate Malfunction
    Description:
    In a case where the defective product was not retained by the subrogated insurance carrier prior to the lawsuit, successfully argued that dismissal was not appropriate because a subrogated insurance carrier could establish the existence of the defect with circumstantial evidence by providing evidence of the occurrence of a malfunction and with eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction.
  • State Farm v. Ware’s Van Storage and Wilson Rodriguez, No. 1515 WDA 2007 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Outcome:
    Split Cause of Action Doctrine Not Applicable After Indemnity Paid
    Description:
    Successfully appealed a decision of the Trial Court dismissing a subrogation claim under the auspices of the split cause of action doctrine. Although subrogation claims are derivative of actions originally maintainable by policyholders, the Court on Appeal recognized that personal injury claims are qualitatively different from property damage subrogation claims. Moreover, the parties in those respective suits are quite different and have divergent interests. Thus, the personal injury plaintiff cannot not waive any rights maintained by the subrogated insurance carrier; their interests had ceased to be identical once the indemnity was paid (i.e. the carrier no longer stands in the shoes of the policyholder once the indemnity is paid).
  • Bates v. George W. Hill Correctional Facility, C.A. No. 12-007631 (C.C.P. of Delaware County Pennsylvania, January 10, 2013).

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Mandatory Arbitration Provision Unenforceable
    Description:
    Successfully argued, on behalf of employee, that arbitration clause to collective bargaining agreement is inconspicuous and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation (i.e. it is ambiguous language that must be construed against the drafter and in favor of protecting important constitutional rights such as the right to a trial by jury).
  • Nationwide Insurance Company of America v. Philadelphia parking Authority, C. A. No. 120203539 (Pa. C.P. April 22, 2013)

    Practice Area:
    Insurance
    Date:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Outcome:
    Political Subdivision Tort Immunity Doesnt Bar Subrogation
    Description:
    Successfully argued in Philadelphia County that subrogation against a municipality in Pennsylvania is indeed allowed, notwithstanding the anti-subrogation interpretations of the political subdivision tort claims act.