Category: Business Law & Commercial Litigation

Philadelphia Business Attorneys: Carpenter Awards $3 Million after Stairway Collapse

By ,

In White v. Drywall, a jury awarded plaintiff, White, $2.5 million for past and future damages, and $500,000 to his wife for loss of consortium after he broke his shoulder on a temporary staircase that collapsed while he was walking on it. White contended that defendant, Beiler Construction LLC, negligently installed the temporary staircase, and that the general contractor was negligent for allowing an unsafe and dangerous condition at the work site.

In January 2012 White was working on a project where defendant, Beiler Construction LLC installed a set of temporary stairs on the work site, and defendant Drywall Inc. was the drywall subcontractor. When White walked down the staircase, he fell to the level below because the staircase gave way. White and other workers had previously reported on numerous occasions that the stairs were unusually wobbly.

White’s doctor said he would have permanent restrictions, and could only use his arm for light duty. White contends that the fall caused radiculopathy in his back and neck, impaired vision, and degeneration in his spine and shoulder, preventing him from playing with his children. The jury found that the two drywall companies and the company that installed the temporary staircase were liable for the incident.

Philadelphia Business Attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect Workers Injured due to Negligent General Contractors

Philadelphia business attorneys at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in protecting workers injured by unsafe work conditions and negligent construction companies. Our dedicated team of commercial attorneys in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including injuries caused by negligent general contractors. Our highly reputable Philadelphia business law firm is conveniently located in Philadelphia and we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: New Report Released on Trademark Litigation

By ,

Trademark litigation is a niche area of the legal field, with over 4,000 cases filed last year. Lex Machina, a legal analysis company, recently conducted a comprehensive study on trademark litigation. The report examined all aspects of trademark cases and defined metrics such as number of filings and amounts of damages awarded. The Trademark Litigation Report published findings that since 2009, trademark lawyers have filed nearly 25,000 cases, resulting in over nine billion dollars in damage payments over the course of five years.

The purpose of the study, according to Lex Machina, was to help business attorneys determine effective strategies for all types of trademark litigation cases by quantifying results from past cases. The Trademark Litigation Report is a useful resource for trademark lawyers, especially for its analysis of damage award payouts. The report determined that of the nine billion dollars in damages paid out, more monies have been awarded by juries rather than by judges. Furthermore, most cases are decided through default judgements.

Litigation Cycle of Trademark Cases

The litigation cycle of each type of case was also measured. Certain trademark cases reach an injunction stage much faster than other cases, specifically cases that involve cybersquatting. Copyright cases and patent cases take longer to get to the injunction stage, while cases involving false advertising almost always face a slow, lengthy process during both initial and long-term injunction.

Lex Machina has also conducted reports analyzing patent litigation in several different districts, and the trademark report follows the same patterns by looking at cases in high profile judicial areas such as the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of Florida, the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois. These courts deal with major and luxury fashion brands as well as music and film trademark cases.

The Trademark Litigation Report is divided into two sections; the first part of the report defines and analyzes metrics for the past five years of trademark cases, while the second section details how major retailers and brands have been involved in trademark law over the course of the study. Specific companies profiled include BMW, Nike, Chanel and Dunkin’ Donuts, and the report includes information on the overall outcome of each case.

Trademark Lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green help Commercial Clients Avoid and Pursue Litigation When Necessary

At the Pennsylvania business law firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green our trademark lawyers in Philadelphia have experience representing business clients in claims involving commercial contract issues, intellectual property, trademark infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, among other business law and commercial litigation matters. We provide experienced legal counsel on how to avoid trademark litigation and on how to pursue a trademark violation claim if one is warranted. Contact our Philadelphia trial lawyers today to schedule a consultation by calling 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Contract Law

By ,

In Pennsylvania, courts will look at the “four corners of the document” to determine the intent of the parties when an issue arises with a provision in the contract. Generally, any evidence of previous oral or written negotiations or agreement involving the same subject matter as the contract is almost always inadmissible to explain or vary the terms of the contract. Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425, 436 (Pa. 2004). This is called the parol evidence rule.

In Yocca, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reiterated that one exception to the parol evidence rule is that prior oral or written negotiations or agreements regarding a contract may be introduced to “vary a writing meant to be the parties’ entire contract where a party avers that a term was omitted from the contract because of fraud, accident, or mistake.” Another exception to allow parol evidence is to explain or clarify ambiguous terms of a contract. Id.

Philadelphia contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law and commercial litigation. Our dedicated team of commercial contract attorneys in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including breach of contract. Call us at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers: Angie’s List Sues Amazon

By ,

Angie’s List, a US-based paid subscription supported website containing crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses, has sued Amazon Local alleging theft of intellectual property. All together, the federal lawsuit suit levels a whole host of charges against Amazon, including misappropriation of trade secrets, theft, computer trespass, civil conspiracy and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the complaint, Angie’s List alleges that Amazon Local executives stole provider lists by signing up as members of the Angie’s List sight and copying provider profiles, member reviews, and other important proprietary information.

Angie’s List was founded in 1995 to create a national listing of home repair providers and other businesses where members that paying members can browse through and evaluate. In 2014, the company reported nearly $80 million in revenue. This past year, Internet retailing giant Amazon entered the home services procurement market through their subsidiary, Amazon Local. According to Angies List, “”Amazon Local has chosen not to devote the necessary time, resources and effort to compete legitimately with Angie’s List. … Instead, Amazon Local and its employees have chosen the shortcut of surreptitiously accessing and misappropriating Angie’s List’s proprietary information … through dozens (if not more) of Angie’s List membership accounts that were fraudulently obtained and misused’.

In the lawsuit, Angie’s Lists states that their membership agreement “”explicitly prohibits the use of Angie’s List’s accounts and information for commercial purposes”, contending that a dozen Amazon Local employees violated that contract. One of the defendants, Daniel Malamud, signed up for Angie’s List just after taking a job with Amazon Local. As an account executive for South Jersey, Malmud reviewed information for hundreds of service providers throughout the Philadelphia Area.

In a brief statement to the press, Angie’s List spokeswoman Cheryl Reed stated, “We welcome competition, but on fair and legal grounds.”

At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our dedicated team of Philadelphia commercial lawyers assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters. Our offices are located in Philadelphia and we represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Breach of Contract

By ,

To establish a breach of contract, there must be a legally binding contract (agreement) or bargained-for exchange that is then not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract. If one party fails to perform the contract in its entirety, or prevents the performance of the contract by the other party, the situation is easier to understand. The situation becomes more complex when the argument is over something subjective in nature, such as the quality of product, or the timing of work. The party who breaches the contract by not performing or improperly performing opens a possible claim for damages by the other party. When the contract is breached, the non-breaching party is relieved of his commitments under the contract.

The court in Giacone v. Virtual Officeware, LLC, 2014 WL 7070205, at *17 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2014) determined that a new sales strategy deployed at Virtual Officeware, LLC (“VOW”) resulted in a breach of contract. The Plaintiff was demoted during a restructuring of VOW’s sales department and lost benefits that accompanied his title, then forced to resign once he was no longer receiving compensation that was promised by his contract. VOW contended that their new strategy was not a breach because the employment agreement came before the restructuring of the department. The Defense also argued the commission terms in the agreement were only attached due to a mutual mistake.

The court found the employment agreement was a valid contract, which was breached by the Defendant. The violation caused the Plaintiff to lose his title, repeat customers, and commissions. Judgment was entered in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $883,871 for lost wages and $220,968 in liquidated damages.

Philadelphia commercial contract lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. are experienced in handing all aspects of business law and commercial litigation. Our dedicated team of commercial contract attorneys in Philadelphia assist clients in a wide range of complex litigation matters, including breach of contract. Call us at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philaelphia Business Lawyers: Bad Faith

By ,

Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees may be awarded for Bad Faith claims in Pennsylvania. An insurance company acts in bad faith when it does not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under an insured’s policy and the insurance company knows or recklessly disregards its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim. MGA Ins. Co. v. Bakos, 699 A.2d 751, 754 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). Additionally, the court may award interest on the amount of the claim from the date in which the claim was made in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. Id.

In Bonenberger v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 791 A.2d 378, 379 (Pa. Super. 2002), the Court held that Nationwide acted in bad faith by failing to adequately evaluate Plaintiff’s injuries after a car crash. The Superior Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings that Nationwide “disregarded Plaintiff’s medical records, conducted no independent medical examination, and made no reasonable evaluation based on Plaintiff’s presentment.” For these reasons, the Superior Court affirmed the lower court’s awards for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

Philadelphia trial lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green represent clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

By ,

To establish a breach of fiduciary duty in Pennsylvania, a party must first demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary relationship exists between two parties when one of them is under a duty to act for or to give advice for the benefit of another upon matters within the scope of the relationship. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874, cmt. a (1979).

The Court in Edelstein & Diamond, L.L.P. v. Orloff, 2005 WL 1648191, at *2 (Pa. Com. Pl. June 29, 2005) held that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a fiduciary relationship with Defendant because it had merely hired Defendant to manage files. A fiduciary relationship must go beyond “mere reliance on a superior skill”, but rather be a relationship characterized by “overmastering influence” on one side and “weakness, dependence, or trust, justifiably reposed” on the other side. Fiduciary relationships are marked by a disparity in power which could give rise to a potential abuse of said power. The Court found no such relationship in this case, as Defendant was not in a position of power over Plaintiff.

For more information, call Philadelphia Commercial Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an online contact form.

 

Philadelphia Business Lawyers:  New Complex Business Litigation Program begins in New Jersey State Courts

By ,

Business litigation in New Jersey just became more streamlined.  Beginning this January, New Jersey state judges have the option of assigning complex business, commercial and construction cases to New Jersey’s new Complex Business Litigation Program.  Based on recommendations of the New Jersey Supreme Court Working Group on Business Litigation, the Program aims to provide a streamlined judicial process for complex business matters.  Other states with similar business litigation programs include Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland.

To be eligible for inclusion in the Complex Business Litigation Program, the amount in controversy must be at least $200,000 (also called the “threshold damages amount.”)  Parties will use the Civil Case Information Statement to indicate whether the matter should be designated as a complex business matter.  Both jury and non-jury matters may be eligible for inclusion in the program.  The Complex Business Litigation Program may also oversee actions related to the establishment of a trust or the imposition of an equitable lien to satisfy damages.

Some types of cases will be excluded from the program including those matters handled by the General Equity Court, condemnation matters, cases where the government is a party, certain personal injury matters and cases involving consumers or labor organizations. If a case becomes part of the Complex Business Litigation Program it will not be subject to the Court’s mandatory civil mediation and arbitration programs.

One promising feature of the Complex Business Litigation Program is the designation of Complex Business Litigation Judges in each vicinage who will have received extensive training in complex business litigation matters such as the Uniform Commercial Code, securities, anti-racketing and business valuation.  These specially designated judges will be expected to issue a minimum of two written opinions annually to assist in the development of a body of law on complex business issues.

All complex cases filed on or after January 1, 2015 may be eligible for inclusion in the Complex Business Litigation Program.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of Business Law Matters and are licensed to practice in New Jersey and Pennsylvania

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our Philadelphia business litigation attorneys are experienced litigators, negotiators and mediators prepared to represent clients in cases pending in the Complex Business Litigation Program. We proudly serve a wide range of business clients from small businesses to large corporations.  With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, our business attorneys represent clients throughout the Delaware Valley in business litigation and intellectual property, including trademark and copyright matters. Call the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today to schedule your free confidential consultation at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers:  Deal Reached between CBS and the Dish Network

By ,

Two major television programming providers, the CBS Corporation and the Dish Network Corporation, have reached a substantial deal for an undisclosed amount to provide CBS television programming to thousands of Dish Network subscribers.  CBS had previously pulled its programming from the Dish Network in several major markets including New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Boston, Denver, Chicago and San Francisco.

This deal will end ongoing litigation between CBS and the Dish Network regarding the use of AutoHop (which allows viewers to skip commercials) and Primetime Anytime programming features.  As a result of the deal, AutoHop will not be available for CBS programming during the “C7 window” which covers the period of time from the premiere of a show plus seven days.  The Dish Network will have access to Showtime video on demand content, authentication rights for Showtime Anytime (giving digital access to Showtime content) and future distribution rights for Showtime Networks.  Dish Network subscribers rely on CBS programming for coverage of high profile NCAA championship basketball and football games during this time of the year.

This is not the first instance of a network blackout faced by the Dish Network.  This past November several Turner Broadcasting channels including TBS, CNN and the Cartoon Network, were unavailable to Dish Network subscribers.  The Dish Network was able to successfully resolve its dispute with Turner Broadcasting to restore subscriber access to these channels as well.

Negotiating a business deal such as the one between CBS and the Dish Network can be a complicated process with legal implications for all involved parties.  Attempting to negotiate a business deal without sound legal advice can have devastating consequences. With the assistance of an experienced business attorney, the rights and obligations of your company can be protected during the course of negotiating a business deal.

At the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, our experienced Philadelphia business lawyers work with large and small businesses in closing business deals throughout the country to ensure that the legal rights of our clients are protected while placing them in the most advantageous negotiating position.

The Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to serve clients throughout the Delaware Valley in business matters including intellectual property cases involving trademarks and copyrights.  To schedule your free confidential consultation, call the Philadelphia business lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Claims for Damages and Lost Profits in Pennsylvania

By ,

As a general rule, damages need not be proved with mathematical certainty. Nevertheless, sufficient evidence must be produced so that a court can arrive at an intelligent estimate without conjecture. See, Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa.Super. 90, 119, 464 A.2d 1243, 1257-1258 (1984). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving damages by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 118, 464 A.2d at 1257. Loss of profits are recoverable upon proper proof both in contract and tort cases.  Id. at 120, 464 A.2d at 1258. The amount of such damages is an issue of fact to be decided by the fact finder. Id. at 117, 464 A.2d at 1257. See also, Glomb v. Glomb, 366 Pa.Super. 206, 216, 530 A.2d 1362, 1368 (1987); Simmons v. Mullen, 231 Pa.Super. 199, 214, 331 A.2d 892, 900 (1974). The fact finder’s determination of damages “should not be interfered with unless it clearly appears that the amount awarded resulted from partiality, caprice, prejudice, corruption or some other improper influence.” Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., supra 318 Pa.Super. at 117, 464 A.2d at 1257.

Under Pennsylvania law, it is well settled that fixed overhead costs are not properly deductible from lost profits. Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. Bryant Paper Co., 297 Pa. 483, 147 A. 519 (1929); Burd v. Campbell Hosiery Co., 150 Pa.Super. 367, 28 A.2d 365 (1942). Fixed overhead costs are costs which are constant in nature, and which would not have been affected by a breach of contract.  The inverse of this principle of law is that variable costs (i.e., those which are not constant in nature) are properly deductible from lost profits in a breach of contract action. See, Kutner Buick v. American Motors Corp., 868 F.2d 614, 617–18 (3d Cir.1989) (“[A]s a matter of both fact and law, fixed costs are irrelevant to the determination of loss of net profit from the determination of a business activity. The only proper focus is revenue generated less variable costs …”).

If you are on either side of a breach of contract or tort claim in Pennsylvania, please feel free to contact an attorney at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, located  in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.