OUTCOME: Client received an additional $125,000 in coverage & payment
My client's homeowners insurance carrier unilaterally and without notice decreased her coverage amounts based upon a faulty and deficient appraisal. After my client suffered a house fire, she was unde...rinsured. A thorough, strongly-worded, well-supported letter to the insurance company regarding their improper actions convinced them to increase my client's coverages and issue additional payments for her loss.
Personal injury
Peters v. George Brown & Sons Glassworks
Oct 16, 2018
OUTCOME: Client dismissed
During a hotel renovation, a worker fell from the third floor, sustaining serious injuries. Among the parties sued, was my client, who installed doors and a card-reader security system on the ground f...loor. Arguing no liability, I obtained dismissal of my client.
Car accident
Talley v. Bethea
May 02, 2018
OUTCOME: Nonsuit for client upheld on appeal
Attorney Adamson obtained a non-suit at trial in Dauphin County before Senior Judge Eby, in a case involving a plaintiff who fell from the defendant client's vehicle, after the defendant pulled away fr...om a parking spot. The plaintiff had been a passenger in the client's vehicle and exited. When he fell from atop the vehicle, he suffered a severe closed head injury, resulting in, among other things, memory loss and loss of sense of smell. The lien for medical treatment alone was $98,000, in addition to plaintiff's claim for past and future wage loss. At trial, Attorney Adamson argued, and Judge Eby agreed, that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of negligence, as there was no evidence that our client knew the plaintiff was on the vehicle when the client pulled away. Only after hearing the plaintiff make a knock on the back window did the client see him, and stop the vehicle. Before the Pennsylvania Superior Court, plaintiff argued that this case was akin to leaving a cell phone, coffee mug, or car seat on top of the roof, getting in, and pulling away. Attorney Adamson argued to the contrary, as in those situations a driver knows that the cell phone, coffee mug, or car seat was on the roof; whereas in this case, our client had no knowledge of the plaintiff alighting the vehicle until the vehicle was already pulling out of the parking spot and plaintiff made a knock at the back window. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's grant of a non-suit.
Personal injury
Austin v. Ryder et al. v. Adams
Jul 31, 2017
OUTCOME: Settled with no contribution from my client
My client was one of two vehicles who ran into an overturned tractor-trailer during a dark and stormy night. There was no lighting in the area and no lighting emanating from the overturned tractor-tra...iler. My client and his passengers were injured in the crash, and upon being sued, the trucking company joined my client as an additional defendant, contending he was negligent in not avoiding the accident. Arguing that improper maintenance, including tire replacement, and the truck-driver's operation of the vehicle caused the tractor-trailer to overturn, which created a sudden emergency for which no liability could rest with my client, the trucking company settled all claims, including my client's, without my client having to contribute.
Personal injury
Scarborough v. The U Company et al.
Jul 31, 2017
OUTCOME: Client dismissed
A bicyclist was injured when he rode over rumble strips placed at a narrowing of a roadway on a bridge over the PA Turnpike. My client planted grass in the median, which was a good distance from the r...umble strips, was not involved in the installation of the rumble strips. Arguing no liability, I obtained voluntary dismissal of my client.
Personal injury
Hackart v Buck v Schmuck
Apr 14, 2014
OUTCOME: Settled with no contribution from my client
My client was joined as an additional defendant after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, she could not be held jointly liable for plaintiff's injuries stemming from a three car... accident, with the original defendant who joined her. I moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that my client could not be directly liable to plaintiff, and the original defendant had to pay more than his share of liability before he could seek contribution from my client. The court agreed and granted my motion. Given that the original defendant's insurance limits were low such that he would never pay more than what his liability would be, the matter settled shortly thereafter, and my client did not have to contribute a dime to settlement.
Personal injury
Schoedel v. Harristown Dev. Corp.
Nov 17, 2010
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict (upheld on appeal)
Plaintiff alleged injuries suffered when an escalator owned by client failed and broke down while Plaintiff was riding on it. Co-Defendant Otis Elevator serviced the escalator for client. Jury found ...no negligence at trial, and Superior Court affirmed.
