Category: Breach of Contract

What Happens if You Are Found in Breach of Contract?

By ,

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Parties Who Face Contractual Difficulties.

In an ideal contract situation, both parties would uphold their side of the agreement, both sides would obtain what was agreed upon, and no issues would come up. However, it can be difficult to maintain a contract, even when both parties want to. Unexpected situations can present themselves without warning, and disputes could arise causing delays. This could sometimes lead to a breach of contract.

A breach of contract happens when a party of a legal binding agreement does not honor their side of the contract, either by not performing an action outlined in the contract, whether it is not performed on time, not performed in accordance with the agreement, or not performed at all. There are three distinct ways a party can breach a contract, depending on the agreement’s subject matter:

  • Either partially or fully not performing the obligations set forth in the contract. This is known as an actual breach of contract.
  • Behaving in a way that shows intent to not perform the obligations set forth in the contract. This is otherwise known as a renunciatory or anticipatory breach.
  • Acting in a way that makes the obligations defined in the contract impossible to perform. This can also be known as a renunciatory breach.

Breaching a contract can have serious consequences. When a breach of contract occurs, the breaching party must pay damages to the aggrieved party. It typically can have significant financial consequences, such as:

  • Lost income
  • Lost profits
  • Increased rental costs
  • Lost rental income
  • Increased labor costs
  • Increase material costs

The nature of the breach typically determines how to remedy the breach. A minor breach, whereas the contract itself is not entirely violated and can still be performed in a certain manner, can often be remedied quickly because a minor breach is when one party fails to perform a small detail of the agreement. The contract typically allows a party a certain amount of time to fix the mistake.

A material breach, also known as a fundamental breach, is such an egregious error that it cancels the contract, and the nonbreaching party no longer must uphold their end of the contract and has the right to file a lawsuit. The contract will typically have the options to remedy the breach, either through mediation or arbitration before filing a lawsuit.

Pennsylvania law allows for damages to be recovered when a contract is breached, but it must total a sum that compensates the aggrieved party for their losses. The nonbreaching party must present evidence, however, that the damages they incurred were reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered and reasonably certain in terms of calculations:

  • Reasonably foreseeable: The damages recovered for the nonbreaching party must be a direct result of the contract breach and reasonably foreseeable at the time the parties agreed in the contract.
  • Reasonably certain calculations: The nonbreaching party has the burden of proving the calculations of their damages by a fair degree of probability. It does not have to be exact, and the jury is forbidden to speculate the amounts. The amount should put the nonbreaching party in or as nearly in the same position they would have been if the contract had not been breached. If the damages cannot be calculated with certainty, then the nonbreaching party is entitled to damages made during or in anticipation of the performance of the contract.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Help Parties Who Face Contractual Difficulties

If you believe you are in breach of contract, or are facing contractual difficulties, then contact the knowledgeable Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. immediately. Call us today at 215-574-0600 or fill out our online form to schedule an initial consultation. With our offices located in Philadelphia, we proudly serve all clients of South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

How Do Non-Disclosure Agreements Work?

By ,

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients Regarding Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are legally binding confidentiality contracts regarding the sharing of sensitive business, financial, or proprietary information with others outside the agreement. NDAs are common when businesses negotiate with other businesses, firms, or individuals requiring confidentiality of the information and data shared among the parties during the process.

In business dealings non-disclosure agreements are common, especially when entering partnerships, hiring employees, or obtaining investors that require sharing sensitive information. An NDA provides confidentiality and security over the. Situations requiring an NDA may include:

  • Mergers and acquisitions: When companies combine, purchase, or sell, sensitive financial and operational information must be shared among all parties involved, including brokers and intermediaries. Organizations choose to enter into NDAs in order to protect their information and ensure confidentiality.
  • Products: NDAs are crucial when licensing or selling new products or technology to protect the spreading of proprietary, technical, and financial information outside the entities involved in the sale or licensing.
  • Partnerships: When entering into new partnerships or securing investors, NDAs are essential to protect information shared during negotiations.
  • Employees: It is also crucial for some organizations to require confidentiality among the employees regarding the sharing of sensitive data, financial or proprietary information, and business practices.
  • Clients: An NDA protects organizations from the spread of sensitive information when acquiring new clients to prevent accidental exposure that could result in legal liabilities.

What Information Should Be Included in an NDA?

Though each NDA is unique based on an organization’s needs, there are essential elements typically included in confidentiality agreements, such as:

  • Identification: Identify and detail the parties included in the agreement, which parties are disclosing and receiving, business partners, accountants, attorneys, and any others associated with the NDA, including names and contact information for all.
  • Definitions: Detail what information is to be held confidential and protected by the NDA, and rules regarding the use of said information.
  • Scope: One of the more crucial parts of an NDA, the scope clearly defines how the NDA will be enforced and specifically details on what information is protected under the agreement.
  • Obligations: This section details what is expected of those who sign the contract and the consequences if the participants violate the agreement.
  • Time limit: NDAs are generally not permanent and should specify the length of time participants are bound to uphold the terms of the agreement, as well as specify when that period will end.
  • Information return: Depending on the scope of business and what information is covered under the NDA, some agreements include a section requiring the parties to confirm that the information they were privy to has been returned or destroyed.
  • Remedies: This section details what actions will take place for breaches of the agreement. Typical consequences involve restraining orders, monetary fines, with additional actions for breaching fiduciary, copyright, patent, or trademark infringements.
  • Exclusions: As with any business contract, there can be exclusions to NDAs as well, typically information that does not require confidentiality. These may include previously disclosed information, prior knowledge of business or financial information among the parties, or information that is public knowledge.

When entering an NDA, review if carefully and understand what is expected of you. Ask questions, voice concerns, and request clarifications if you uncomfortable or disagree with the terms. Never sign a contract that you do not agree with or fully understand.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist Clients Regarding Non-Disclosure Agreements

If your business is planning to merge or acquire another business, entering a partnership, or recruiting investors, you are likely going to need to develop non-disclosure agreements to protect your sensitive and proprietary information. Our experienced Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. can assist in developing the agreement. Contact us online or call 215-574-0600 for an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we also serve clients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

EDPA Finds No Breach of Contract or Bad Faith by Company that Raised Monthly Electricity Rates Following First Month “Teaser” Rate

By ,

In Silvis v. Ambit Energy L.P, the Court held that Plaintiff failed to rebut Defendant’s showing that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and awarded summary judgment in favor of Defendant. Silvis v. Ambit Energy L.P, 170 F.Supp.3d 754, 759 (E.D. Pa. 2016). Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to supply electricity based on variable rate plan under which she paid a “teaser” rate for the first month and thereon, the rate fluctuated. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant enticed her to switch her supplier. Plaintiff became quickly disappointed after the “teaser” rate expired because her bill would swell during certain months. Ultimately, Plaintiff field a class action alleging breach of contract. Specifically, that Defendant breached its agreements with Plaintiff and the Proposed Class members by charging rates that did not meet contractual obligations.

Under Pennsylvania law, a breach of contract claim includes the following elements: “(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3) resultant damages.” Because there was no express provision in the contract requiring Defendant to provide a competitive rate, Plaintiff failed to allege a breach of an express contractual provision. Plaintiff also contended that Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by exercising its rate-adjusting discretion in bad faith. The Court explained that, while there is no separate cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the Courts instead utilize the good faith duty as an interpretive tool to determine the expectations in the context of a breach of contract claim. Plaintiff did not prevail on this claim because she did not proffer any legitimate evidence of bad faith and in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff must show there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Thus, Defendant was awarded summary judgment.

Philadelphia contract lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. protect employees’ right to work. For assistance in any type of employment law matter, call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia office, where we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or contact us online.

  Category: Breach of Contract, Employment Law
  Comments: Comments Off on EDPA Finds No Breach of Contract or Bad Faith by Company that Raised Monthly Electricity Rates Following First Month “Teaser” Rate
  Other posts by

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Disclosure of Truthful Information Does Not Qualify as Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

By ,

In Walnut Street Associates, Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the disclosure of truthful information regarding an employee does not constitute tortious interference. 20 A.3d 468 (Pa. 2011). In this matter, Plaintiff, Walnut Street Associates (“WSA”), provided insurance brokerage services and provided clients with health insurance benefits for their employees. Defendants, Brokerage Concepts, Inc. (“BCI”), were the third-party administrator of the employee benefit plan of Plaintiff’s client, Procacci Brothers Sales Corp. (“Procacci”). The issue in question arose when Procacci requested that BCI lower their service costs. When BCI informed Procacci that they would not meet the requested cost, Procacci decided to leave BCI and to hire a new insurance administrator. Upon hearing the news of Procacci’s departure, BCI contacted Procacci and informed them that they could not lower the costs because BCI was required to pay WSA a certain percentage of the proceeds from Procacci. Procacci was not aware that WSA was receiving such a high percentage, and thus, terminated their contract with WSA. WSA brought suit against BCI for tortious interference with contractual relations for their disclosure of WSA compensation under the contract.

In Pennsylvania, in order to succeed on a claim for tortious interference, the plaintiff must establish that (1) a contract or a prospective contract existed between the plaintiff and a third-party; (2) purposeful action by the defendant with the intent to harm the relationship between the parties to the contract; (3) The defendant’s action was improper; and (4) actual damages resulted from defendant’s interference.

In this matter, the Court was faced with determining whether BCI’s actions constituted tortious interference. There was no dispute that there was a contractual relationship between WSA and Procacci, and BCI interfered with that relationship, but in order to satisfy the elements of the claim, WSA had to establish that BCI’s actions were improper.  In analyzing whether the actions by BCI were improper, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s decision to adopt Section 772(a) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides that “there is of course no liability for interference with a contract or with a prospective contractual relation on the part of one who merely gives truthful information to another.” Furthermore, this disclosure of truthful information was not considered tortious even if the third-party requested the information or not. For this reason, the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s reasoning and ruled in favor of BCI.

For more information, call the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Breach of Contract, Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Disclosure of Truthful Information Does Not Qualify as Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
  Other posts by

Third Circuit Rules Upholds District Court Ruling Against Employer who Alleged Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

By ,

In Givaudan Fragrances, Corp. v. Krivda, Plaintiff Givaudan filed suit against its former employee and the employee’s new employer for misappropriation of trade secrets. 639 F.App’x. 840, 842 (3rd. Cir. 2016). Givaudan alleged that Krivda stole over 600 fragrance formulas from its database before leaving for another employer in 2008. Givaudan alleged that the fragrance formulas were worth millions of dollars and considered them to be trade secrets. While the District Court of New Jersey granted Defendants summary judgment on the vast majority of Givaudan’s claims, it permitted Plaintiff to move forward to trial as to 34 formulas allegedly misappropriated by Krivda. After a five-week jury trial, the jury unanimously ruled in favor of Krivda on all clams, finding that Givaudan failed to prove that Krivda violated his employment contract or misappropriated any of the 34 fragrance formulas. Givaudan appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Third Circuit began its analysis by preforming a de novo review of the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. For misappropriation to be proven in trade secrete cases, “it is patently obvious that trade secrets must be identified with enough specificity to put a defendant on notice of what is actually alleged to have been stolen.” Additionally, the Third Circuit notes that circumstantial evidence can be used to establish misappropriation of trade secrets, but only after enough specific information has been given to the defendant so the defendant can defend himself from the accusations. However, the availability of circumstantial evidence, to prove misappropriation of trade secrets, is tempered by the fact that it cannot be used to substantiate bald assertions

Here, the Court noted that Givaudan failed to provide Krivda with enough specific information about many of the formulas it believed to have been misappropriated. Out of the 600 formulas alleged to be stolen, Givaudan provided specific information on only 34. The Third Circuit next noted that even though the District Court allowed Givaudan to submit circumstantial evidence which showed Krivda printing out formulas, and being recruited by his new employer, the jury rejected the circumstantial evidence. The Third Circuit therefore affirmed the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Krivda and, finding that since the District Court did not deprive Givaudan of a fair trial, there existed no basis to overturn the District Court’s jury verdict.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. our experienced Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including contract law. If you are interested in having a consultation with one of our attorneys, please call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Breach of Contract
  Comments: Comments Off on Third Circuit Rules Upholds District Court Ruling Against Employer who Alleged Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
  Other posts by

Eastern District Dismisses Breach of Contract Claim Against Former Employee for Alleged Violation of Non-Compete

By ,

In Sales Benchmark Index LLC v. DeRosa, SBI sued DeRosa after he resigned from the company and went to work for another company. No. CV 18-2680, 2018 WL 3918090, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2018). SBI claimed DeRosa was in violation of the non-compete provision within his employment agreement by providing the same or substantially the same duties at the new employer; however, SBI did not allege the subsequent employer was a competitor of SBI, but that DeRosa himself was competing. The relevant portion of the agreement stated:

“Employee shall not directly or indirectly, in any Capacity, engage in Restricted Activities for a Competing Business[.]” “Restricted Activities” are “work activities, duties and/or responsibilities” that are “the same as, substantially similar to, or include,” the type of activities an employee had with SBI, including “sales and/or marketing advisory and/or consulting services.”

The Court’s analysis of this issue required a resolution to whether or not DeRosa was providing the same or substantially similar services for the subsequent employer, as he did when he was with SBI. To classify as a competing business, thereby creating a potential violation of the non-compete, the agreement defined a “Competing Business” as:

[A]ny Person in the business of providing sales and/or marketing advisory and/or consulting services, including businesses that supply, manufacture, produce, design, sell and/or market, as applicable, products and/or services which are the same or substantially similar to the products and/or services that [SBI] … supplied, manufactured, produced, designed, sold and/or marketed during the Reference Period. Businesses that engage in Competing Business include … the Employee operating Employee’s own business in any Capacity.

SBI attempted to argue DeRosa should be considered a “Competing Business” for purposes of an alleged breach of the non-compete. The Court refused to accept SBI’s argument, that the agreement prevents DeRosa from doing the same or substantially the same duties for a competing business. The Court noted that nowhere in the complaint did SBI allege the DeRosa ran his own business.

Since the Complaint failed to show DeRosa was not personally competing with his new employer, and SBI did not claim the new employer is a competitor, the Court dismissed the breach of contract claim for a violation of the non-compete.

Philadelphia contract lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. protect employees’ right to work. For assistance in any type of employment law matter, call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia office, where we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or contact us online.

Third Circuit Affirms District Court Ruling Poor Performance is Not Severe Enough to Circumvent Right-to-Cure Provision in Employment Contract

By ,

In Milton Reg’l Sewer Auth. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 648 Fed.Appx. 215 (3rd Cir. 2016) the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that Pennsylvania contract law requires a more severe breach before contracting parties may violate a right-to-cure provision in a contract. Appellant Milton Regional Sewer Authority (“Milton”), a municipal authority, entered into a contract with Appellee Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”), a construction company, for a public works project. The contract contained a right-to-cure provision that states “[Travelers’] services will not be terminated if [Travelers] begins within seven days of receipt of notice of intent to terminate to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 days of receipt of said notice.” In other words, before Milton could terminate the contract, it was required to give Travelers 30 days to fix whatever problem had arisen.

After the contract was finalized, Travelers began working on the project. Milton quickly became unsatisfied with the work being done and proceeded to send a letter to Travelers ordering it to suspend work. Travelers offered to correct the work in their response but Milton rejected and terminated the contract without giving Travelers an opportunity to fix its allegedly defective work. Following the termination of the contract, Milton hired another construction company to complete the project. Milton filed a complaint for additional costs incurred as a result of the termination.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit began their analysis by stating “Pennsylvania follows the general rule of contract law that ‘a material breach of a contract relieves the non-breaching party from any continuing duty of performance thereunder.’” Such a contract may only be terminated without providing an opportunity to cure when there is a material breach of the contract so serious it goes directly to the heart and essence of the contract, rendering the breach incurable. The breach must be so severe that requiring notice before termination would be a useless gesture. The Court said a “typical example of a breach that goes directly to the essence of a contract is fraud.” Milton in this case alleged various deficiencies in the work performed by Travelers which, taken together, amount to an allegation that Travelers performed poorly. The Court found that “unlike fraud, poor performance is not incurable” and Travelers was eager to cure its deficiencies if given the chance. Lastly, the Court points out that “Pennsylvania contract law, therefore, requires a more severe breach before contracting parties may violate right to cure provisions.” Thus, Milton’s conduct in terminating Travelers amounted to wrongful termination and an ineffective exercise of contract rights.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. our experienced Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorneys handle many types of legal matters, including contract law. If you are interested in having a consultation with one of our attorneys, please call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Breach of Contract, Business Law
  Comments: Comments Off on Third Circuit Affirms District Court Ruling Poor Performance is Not Severe Enough to Circumvent Right-to-Cure Provision in Employment Contract
  Other posts by

Employee Fails to Prove That Union Acted Arbitrarily or in Bad Faith When Refusing to Arbitrate His Termination

By ,

Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of an employer’s motion for summary judgment denying Plaintiff’s hybrid claim for breach of contract/unfair representation. Smokowicz v, Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94099 (E.D. Pa. 2018). Plaintiff Micheal D. Smokowicz (“Smokowicz”) brought claims for breach of contract against his former employer, Graphic Packaging International, Inc. (“Graphic”) for their alleged violation of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act; and a claim against his union for failure to provide fair representation under 29 U.S. C. § 159(a).  In order for a plaintiff to succeed on a § 301/fair representation claim, the plaintiff must prove both breach of contract and the union’s failure to provide fair representation. The Court determined that Smokowicz failed to prove that the Union breached its duty of fair representation; and thus, the Court was not required to rule on the employer’s alleged breach.

In this present matter, Smokowicz was involved in multiple incidents leading up his termination. Before Smokowicz’s termination, Graphic attempted to terminate him for violating the company’s anti-harassment and violence policy. In lieu of terminating Smokowicz, his union was able to negotiate a Last Chance Agreement which allowed for Smokowicz to return to his previous position under the condition that any future violation of the standard of conduct will be cause for termination. Three years following the Last Chance Agreement Smokowicz was terminated for mislabeling packages. In an attempt to resolve the issue, Smokowicz’s union attended numerous meetings with the Human Resources Department and supervisors at Graphic with the goal of allowing Smokowicz to return to work. After days of negotiating and pleading with Graphic, the Union informed Smokowicz that it believed that it could not prevail in arbitration and that it would not proceed any further with a grievance.

The Court ruled that in order for a claim that a union breached its duty of fair representation, the plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that the union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Previous precedents have defined “arbitrary conduct” as being irrational and being without a rational basis or explanation. Further, mere ineptitude or negligence is not sufficient to establish conduct is “arbitrary.”  Under this standard, even if a more experienced representative would have used a different strategy or achieved a different result, the plaintiff cannot successfully claim that the union acted arbitrary.

The standard for bad faith is much more ambiguous, and findings of bad faith “require more than unsupported allegations.” The Third Circuit has held that a plaintiff must show that “the union and its representatives harbored animosity towards the employee; and . . . that animosity manifested itself as a material factor in the union’s handling of the employee’s grievance.” The plaintiff, when claiming bad faith, must present evidence in the record to support such allegations of animus and that the union’s animus towards the plaintiff manifested itself in the handling of the plaintiff’s employment grievance.

Even when viewing the facts in the most favorable light to Smokowicz, the Court determined that he was unable to demonstrate that the Union’s conduct was without a “rational basis or explanation,” or that the Union manifested any animosity towards Smokowicz. The Union had already successfully negotiated Smokowicz’s previous termination, and although it did not pursue a formal grievance regarding his second termination; the Union did not act in bad faith or breach its duty to provide fair representation.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green our experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers handle many types of legal matters, including contract law. If you are interested in having a consultation with one of our Philadelphia business lawyers, please call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Court Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Provision

By ,

On April 3, 2017, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas refused to uphold an arbitration provision in a Responsible Person Agreement (“RPA”) signed by a nursing home resident’s daughter, but not signed by the resident herself. Clementson v. Evangelical Manor, Civil Action No. 160601775 (C.P. Philadelphia 2017). On September 17, 2014, Plaintiff, Elsie Clementson, was a resident of Defendant Evangelical Manor’s nursing home when she suffered a serious fall, resulting in a tibia fracture. When Plaintiff was admitted to the nursing home in 2012, Plaintiff’s daughter signed an RPA, which stated that the person signing the agreement may be “the Guardian, the Agent under a Power of Attorney, or any person authorized by the Resident to serve as Resident’s Responsible Person.” The RPA also contained a mandatory arbitration provision. At the time the RPA was signed, Plaintiff’s daughter did not have power of attorney over her mother, nor was she authorized by her mother to serve as her mother’s “Responsible Person.”

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 17, 2016. On November 3, 2016, Defendant filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration. On December 19, 2016, the Court denied Defendant’s Petition, which it timely appealed. On appeal, the Court upheld the decision to deny Defendant’s Petition, as Pennsylvania law does not allow an agent, by his own words, to invest himself with apparent authority, as such authority has to derive from the action of the principal, not the agent. The Court ruled that Defendant failed to provide any evidence that Plaintiff was present at the time that her daughter signed the RPA, or that her daughter could sign for her. Defendant also failed to offer any evidence of actions taken by Plaintiff that would create an agency relationship.

For more information, call our business lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules Discharged Predecessor Law Firm Can Collect Fees from Succeeding Firm in Wrongful Death Action

By ,

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled that predecessor law firms who are discharged by a client can recover damages in quantum meruit from a successor law firm that takes over the case. In Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 137 A.3d 1247 (Pa. 2016), the case involved a dispute between two law firms about attorney’s fees earned in a wrongful death litigation settlement. Plaintiff, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck law firm, (“Meyer”) brought a breach of contract and quantum meruit action against Defendant, Law Firm of Malone Middleman (“Middleman”).

In the case, an attorney named William Weiler, Jr. formally represented the Eazor estate in March 2005. Later that year, Weiler became associated with Meyer, and entered into a written employment agreement acknowledging that “any and all legal work performed by him will be deemed work on behalf of the firm.” Weiler brought to the firm the Eazor estate litigation, and along with other Meyer attorneys and staff, worked on the case over the course of 19 months. 2 years later, Weiler resigned from Meyer and agreed Meyer would receive two-thirds of attorney’s fees arising from the Eazor estate litigation. Weiler then subsequently became affiliated with Middleman. The Eazor estate discharged Meyer, and entered into a contingency fee agreement with Middleman without addressing payment or protection of attorney’s fees to Meyer. Middleman ultimately obtained settlement for the Eazor estate. Meyer filed this action claiming entitlement to two-thirds of attorney’s fees.

The court ruled that Meyer could not recover under a breach of contract claim because Middleman, as the successor firm, was not bound by the predecessor firm’s employment agreement with Weiler. However, Meyer was not deprived of its right to recover under quantum meruit the proper amount for the services which they had rendered for the litigation.

For more information, call our Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.