Category: Business Law & Commercial Litigation

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Statue of Limitations for Bad Faith Claim

By ,

Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Claim Triggers After Failure to Investigate Same Claim After Denial, When Insurer is Provided With New Information

In Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, the Superior Court addressed the issue of whether the statute of limitations for bad faith claims restarts after an insurance company fails to investigate a claim after receiving new information. In Rancosky, the Court ruled that the insured’s bad faith claim fell within the two-year statute of limitations based upon poor investigative practices. .

The trial court effectively ruled that a bad faith plaintiff must establish the insurer had a motive of self-interest or ill will. While the trial court had ruled that self-interest or ill will were considered in weighing the first element, absence of a reasonable basis, the Superior Court found this was merely a back door ruling that self-interest or ill will were required elements to establish the claim. The Superior Court observed that “there is an important distinction between an initial act of alleged bad faith conduct and later independent and separate acts of such conduct.”  It ruled that: “When a plaintiff alleges a subsequent and separately actionable instance of bad faith, distinct from and unrelated to the initial denial of coverage, a new limitations period begins to run from the later act of bad faith.” Thus, “[a]n inadequate investigation is a separate and independent injury to the insured.”

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Bad Faith Lawyers: Bad Faith Claim Denied After Court Finds No Coverage for Third Party Negligence

By ,

In Rogers v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of bad faith claims asserted against Allstate. Finding that the insured’s auto insurance comprehensive clause did not cover negligent or poor workmanship repairs by a third-party repair shop, the claim was dismissed.

The insured was involved in a collision, and permitted an unsolicited tow truck to transport her car to Collisionworks for repairs and she agreed to complete the repairs for the cost proposed in the adjuster’s estimate directly to Allstate, who then paid Collisionworks. After the car owner noticed issues with the vehicle, she filed a claim with Allstate for the car’s condition, which was denied by Allstate. Allstate claimed that the company does not provide comprehensive coverage for loss caused by negligent repairs.

After the denial the insured filed suit against Allstate and Collisionworks. The trial court sustained Allstate’s preliminary objections and dismissed the woman’s claims of breach of contract, negligence, violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and bad faith with prejudice. After reviewing the policy, the Court concluded that only certain categories of harm were subject to coverage, including: 1) weather-related risks, 2) Civil unrest risks, 3) Criminal Acts, and 4) falling objects. The Court stated that the insured’s claim, as pled, can only be characterized as faulty or negligent workmanship, and not a criminal act.

For more information, call Philadelphia bad faith lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Litigation Lawyer: How To Help Your Lawyer Win Your Case

By ,

By Gary Green, Managing Partner at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., [email protected]

The client is not just a passenger in a lawsuit. Instead, the client should be a combination of co-pilot and Air Traffic Control. Your lawyer needs your help.

1.  Write A Story About Your Case

You know what happened. Judges and juries will transform the evidence they hear at trial into a story. Therefore, you can get a head start by putting the facts together in the same way a novelist would write about the case. You can use chronological order and create a narrative that starts at the beginning. In some cases, the personalities and relationships of the parties and witnesses are more important. Whatever you select, write out everything you can think of. Eliminate all duplication to allow your lawyer to digest your story. Keep a copy and update your story as you learn or understand new things. Do not be afraid to throw out the story and start over if the mode you picked (e.g., chronological) turns out to be less effective than another (e.g., personal relationships). When you have your testimony taken, your story will help you keep the facts in perspective to the issues in the case. Also, your narrative will be a road-map for your lawyer when he cross examines your adversaries and plans for the evidence needed for you to win.

2.  Do Not Be Afraid To Be Honest

Many people make the mistake of thinking that if their case does not have a perfect set of facts they cannot win. However, judges and juries know life is flawed like genuine leather and a case that looks perfect is treated like a cheap, plastic imitation of the truth. Your lawyer will be planning your case around what you tell him. If you do not tell him the truth, he will get stuck on a detour. Think of telling an ambulance driver directions on where it should pick up a sick loved one. You surely would be as accurate as possible; and your communications with your lawyer must be just as careful and accurate

3.  Organize Your Emails And Papers

In modern trials, email and documents often dominate the case. Do not shirk the work of diligently searching all of your computers and phones for email and text messages; and similarly, locate every paper document. These things will be like bullets in your lawyer’s gun on the one hand, and will give him a plan of how to avoid traps.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Litigation Lawyers: Bad Faith Lawsuit Involving Restaurant Chain

By ,

The Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery, a popular bar/restaurant chain, is involved in commercial litigation with one of its franchise developers that alleges the Tilted Kilt is no longer living up to its contractual duties.

The legal battle began in November 2015, when Tilted Kilt sued 1220 LLC, a Chicago area developer for Tilted Kilt. 1220 LLC consists of four brothers, the Baroud brothers – Robert, Emil, Anthony and Peter. In 2007, the brothers entered into an area developer agreement with the Tilted Kilt, agreeing to sell and develop franchises in Northern Illinois, Southern Wisconsin and Northwest Indiana in exchange for revenue that would be generated by franchise fees.

Tilted Kilt’s Allegations

In its lawsuit, Tilted Kilt alleges that in 2009, the developers from 1220 LLC met with prospective franchise owners and told them that franchised Tilted Kilt restaurants generated revenues of $2.5 million dollars annually, which is a misrepresentation according to the complaint. The prospective business owners then entered into an agreement to establish three Tilted Kilts in Kenosha, Wisconsin; Vernon Hills, Illinois; and Gurnee, Illinois. However, the franchises did not generate the profits projected by the Baroud brothers. In fact, the Kenosha location sustained significant losses. All three locations have since closed.

Tilted Kilt has asked the court permission to terminate its agreement with 1220 for unlawfully misrepresenting the company’s financial performance.

1220’s Countersuit

Recently, 1220 filed a countersuit against Tilted Kilt, alleging that the company had failed to meet its contractual obligations. The suit alleges that Tilted Kilt abused vendor rebates, failed to develop and implement effective marketing and made unreasonable business decisions in bad-faith that cut into 1220’s profits. The brothers are seeking $20 million in damages.

The suit also alleges that Tilted Kilt had been trying to terminate their contract with 1220 for years because they wanted to acquire 1220’s stream of revenue.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Businesses That Have Been Harmed by Acts of Bad Faith

If your business has been harmed by bad faith acts, such as an intentional misrepresentation that induced you to enter into an unfavorable contract, our skilled Philadelphia business litigation lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are prepared to help you get justice and will pursue a bad faith lawsuit in Philadelphia on your behalf. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent businesses throughout Philadelphia and South Jersey. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or fill out our online contact form today.

Commercial Lawyer in Philadelphia: Detrimental Reliance

By ,

Reliance on Promise to Party’s Detriment is Adequate Consideration Necessary to Form Binding Contract

Embedded in the principles of contract law is the doctrine of promissory estoppel.  Also known as detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel protects a party to a contract who relies upon a false promise from another party.  The basic premise of the doctrine is that when one party of a contract makes a promise that he or she should reasonably expect the other party of the contract to rely upon, and the second party actually does rely upon it to their own detriment, then the promise of the first party will be upheld if no other course to avoid injustice is available. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981).  As a part of contract law, the doctrine is subject to a four-year statute of limitations period.

In order for a contract to be formed, there must be an offer, an acceptance (together these are known as mutual assent) and some form of consideration. Consideration in its simplest form is what is given up or received resulting from the agreement in the contract.  According to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the detriment of relying on the mutual assent is effectively the consideration necessary to form a contract. Travers v. Cameron Cnty. Sch. Dist., 117 Pa. Commw. 606, 544 A.2d 547 (Pa. Commw. 1988).  If two people make an agreement and one of the parties relies upon that agreement and suffers a loss due to the failure of the other party to perform, promissory estoppel may allow the first party to recover damages from the second party.  In Pennsylvania, governmental agencies are not immune to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Department of Environmental Resources v. Dixon Contracting Co., Inc., 80 Pa. Commw. Ct. 438, 471 A.2d 934 (1984).

For more information, call a commercial lawyer in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Help Your Lawyer Win Your Case

By ,

How To Help Your Lawyer Win Your Case[1]

Summary:

The client is not just a passenger in a lawsuit. Instead, the client should be a combination of co-pilot and Air Traffic Control. Your lawyer needs your help.

  1. Write A Story About Your Case

You know what happened. Judges and juries will transform the evidence they hear at trial into a story. Therefore, you can get a head start by putting the facts together in the same way a novelist would write about the case. You can use chronological order and create a narrative that starts at the beginning. In some cases, the personalities and relationships of the parties and witnesses are more important. Whatever you select, write out everything you can think of. Eliminate all duplication to allow your lawyer to digest your story. Keep a copy and update your story as you learn or understand new things. Do not be afraid to throw out the story and start over if the mode you picked (e.g., chronological) turns out to be less effective than another (e.g., personal relationships). When you have your testimony taken, your story will help you keep the facts in perspective to the issues in the case. Also, your narrative will be a roadmap for your lawyer when he cross examines your adversaries and plans for the evidence needed for you to win.

  1. Do Not Be Afraid To Be Honest

Many people make the mistake of thinking that if their case does not have a perfect set of facts they cannot win. However, judges and juries know life is flawed like genuine leather and a case that looks perfect is treated like a cheap, plastic imitation of the truth. Your lawyer will be planning your case around what you tell him. If you do not tell him the truth, he will get stuck on a detour. Think of telling an ambulance driver directions on where it should pick up a sick loved one. You surely would be as accurate as possible; and your communications with your lawyer must be just as careful and accurate.

  1. Organize Your Emails And Papers

In modern trials, email and documents often dominate the case. Do not shirk the work of diligently searching all of your computers and phones for email and text messages; and similarly, locate every paper document. These things will be like bullets in your lawyer’s gun on the one hand, and will give him a plan of how to avoid traps.

Additional resources provided by the author

Gary Green

For more information, contact our Philadelphia business lawyers at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

[1] Copyright 2016  by Gary Green Esquire, Managing Partner of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C.,  Philadelphia Pa.

 

Philadelphia Cab Company Sues Uber for $1.5 Million in Damages

By ,

On January 08, 2016, CoachTrans, Inc., a Philadelphia-based cab company sued Uber Technologies, Inc. for tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, prima facia tort, and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Plaintiff is seeking at least $1.5 million in damages.

CoachTrans, which owns three cabs, has seen the value of its taxicab medallions, which are required by law for anyone who wants to operate a cab in Philadelphia, drop in net worth from $500,000 down to $80,000 following Uber’s rise in the city. The lawsuit alleges that by identifying itself as a “taxi” in commerce, Uber made a “false and misleading” statement to the public and such statement has caused and continues to cause “competitive or commercial injuries to Plaintiff.”

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Pittsburgh Paid Sick Leave Act Ruled Invalid

By ,

Less than six months after being signed into law, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County has ruled that the Paid Sick Leave Act is invalid and unenforceable. The law required employers to provide employees a minimum of one hour of paid sick time per thirty-five hours worked, with the minimum accrual dependent upon the number of employees.

Plaintiffs claimed that the city does not have the authority to enact the ordinance under what is known as the “Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law”. This law states that a “home rule municipality, such as Pittsburgh, ‘shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers’ unless expressly provided by statutes”.  The Court determined that the Act did just that, in violation of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law. As a result of this case, companies with operations in Pittsburgh need not update their sick and paid leave policies.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: “Cadillac Tax” Delayed until 2020

By ,

On December 18, 2015, President Obama approved a spending and tax package that includes a two-year delay of the so-called “Cadillac Tax”. This tax will impose a forty percent excise tax group health plans to the extent their total annual premium costs exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. This tax is intended to motivate employers and carriers to find a way to reduce the costs of employee health coverage.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Elements of Defamation in Pennsylvania

By ,

Defamation is a tort that holds individuals liable for false statements, spoken or written, which harm the reputation of another.  In general, a defamation complaint must be sufficient to identify the accused defamer and outline the circumstances of the publication of the false statements.  The tort protects public figures as well as private individuals and is interpreted under state law.  The statute of limitations is one year for bringing an action for defamation.

In Pennsylvania, the elements of the tort are outlined in the Uniform Single Publication Act (USPA).  The burden is initially on the Plaintiff to prove each element: 1. The defamatory character of the communication, 2. Its publication by the Defendant, 3. Its application to the Plaintiff, 4. The recipient’s understanding of its defamatory meaning, 5. The recipient’s understanding of it as intended to be applied to the Plaintiff, 6. Special harm resulting to the Plaintiff from the publication (actual damages that are economic or pecuniary). 7. Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion (the publication was not reasonably necessary due to common interests).

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.