Mitchell S. Goldberg

The case involved a dispute over whether an automobile insurance policy's uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for 'compensatory damages' required the insurer to pay delay damages awarded under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 in addition to the compensatory damages portion of a verdict against an uninsured motorist. The plaintiff had obtained a verdict allocating $85,000 in compensatory damages and $48,201.96 in delay damages, but Nationwide refused to cover the latter. The court denied the insurer's motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment claim, finding the policy ambiguous because it neither defined compensatory damages nor excluded delay damages, and because the policy must be read as a whole in light of the rule's language adding delay damages to the compensatory award. The court granted the motion to dismiss the bad faith claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose when Stephen Ruder, an art teacher employed by Pequea Valley School District since 2000, was terminated after disclosing his Crohn's disease diagnosis in 2004 and requesting related accommodations and medical leave. Ruder sued the school district, its employees, and his medical provider (RGAL) alleging ten counts including civil rights violations under §1983, ADA and FMLA breaches, state human relations act claims, and various torts such as defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court addressed motions to dismiss from both sets of defendants and granted them in part and denied them in part. The core reasoning evaluated whether each count stated a plausible claim, examining issues such as the adequacy of medical authorization under HIPAA for record disclosures, the sufficiency of allegations for disparate treatment and First Amendment violations, and the elements required for tort claims like intrusion upon seclusion.

civil rightslabor & employmenthealthcaretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Pacific Employers Insurance Company (PEIC), a Pennsylvania insurer, and AXA Belgium, a Belgian reinsurer, over alleged breaches of obligations under a 1978 reinsurance agreement originally negotiated in California through PEIC's agent. PEIC sued in Pennsylvania federal court claiming ongoing reimbursement duties, but AXA Belgium moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that AXA Belgium did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania. The core reasoning was that the contract and all initial dealings occurred in California with no jurisdiction clause, while later payments, audits, and communications in Pennsylvania stemmed solely from PEIC's unilateral move there after 1992 and did not show purposeful availment.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves cross-appeals from a bankruptcy court's rulings on a request for attorney's fees and costs under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) after the dismissal of an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed against Jeanne S. Diloreto by the Liquidator of Nassau Insurance Company. The bankruptcy court awarded Diloreto $82,150 in fees and $8,770.30 in costs but denied her claim for bad faith damages. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy judge did not err in law, fact, or discretion when exercising the broad authority granted by the statute to award reasonable fees based on the totality of the circumstances, including the Liquidator's large claim and limited prosecution of the petition, and when denying a setoff that would undermine the statute's purpose.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned the death of a two-month-old infant, Raphael Costobile-Fulginiti, whose estate sued the City of Philadelphia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the City’s Department of Human Services released the infant to his mother despite his positive methadone test at birth and subsequent reports of potential neglect. The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that the City owed no general duty to protect the infant from private harm, had not formed a special relationship with him that would impose such a duty, and had not created the danger leading to his death.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves the 2005 shooting death of James Stewart by Allentown Police Officer Jeremy Moll during an attempt to take Stewart into custody after he had absconded from a work-release program; Stewart's estate and his sister Tonya Stewart sued the city, the officers, and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging excessive force, false arrest, and related claims. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court denied dismissal of the § 1983 excessive-force claim against Officer Moll because conflicting witness accounts created genuine issues of material fact about whether Stewart was holding a knife or otherwise posed an imminent threat when shot. The court granted summary judgment on the remaining claims, including municipal liability against the City of Allentown, claims against the other officer, and various state-law counts, because the plaintiffs failed to show an unconstitutional policy or custom, the officers had probable cause for related actions such as detaining Tonya Stewart, and other legal prerequisites were not met.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case centers on plaintiff Lucy Rorrer's Title VII claim against her employer, Cleveland Steel Container, and coworker Richard Gilbert, alleging a hostile work environment created by sexual harassment, including an incident in which Gilbert allegedly pressed a utility knife against her breast after prior harassing conduct. After the incident was reported, the employees were separated and Gilbert was suspended, but Rorrer stopped working due to claimed trauma. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the Title VII claim and related state-law claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent employment. Applying the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court denied the motions in part and granted them in part, determining that genuine issues of material fact existed on elements including severity or pervasiveness of the conduct, detrimental effect, and employer notice or liability, while some claims were withdrawn or lacked sufficient support.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerned a physical altercation at a Philadelphia airport hotel in 2006 between organizers for the Transport Workers Union and members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), including Local Lodge 1776, following the merger of U.S. Airways and America West. Plaintiffs sued the national IAM, its officers, and Local 1776, alleging a conspiracy to commit assault. The court granted summary judgment to the national IAM defendants, dismissing all claims against them, because plaintiffs provided insufficient evidence that those defendants participated in or authorized any agreement to use violence. The court denied summary judgment to Local 1776, allowing the claims against it to proceed to trial, because evidence including guilty pleas by several Local 1776 members raised a genuine issue of material fact about the local's involvement in the conspiracy.

labor & employmentcriminal lawtorts & liability

In Doe v. Schneider, plaintiffs John Doe and his wife alleged that defendant Kenneth Schneider sexually abused Doe for eight years beginning at age twelve, while Schneider and the other defendants (his family members and The Apogee Foundation) provided financial support for Doe's ballet training and education, using threats to maintain control and later attempting to secure a release from liability. The amended complaint asserted eight counts, including a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, assault and battery, negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, RICO violations, and loss of consortium. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court applied the Twombly pleading standard and evaluated each claim, granting the motion in part and denying it in part based on the sufficiency of allegations, applicable statutes of limitations, and standing requirements for the RICO claim.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute where Somerset Industries and Springhouse Partners sought payment from Lexington Insurance for water damage to their warehouse and inventory, including dry goods, frozen goods, and business income losses, following a 2006 rainstorm. The policy was an all-risk policy with amendments removing flood and surface water exclusions but retaining a sewer or drain backup exclusion, along with limitations on interior rain damage unless the building first sustained covered damage to its roof or walls. Lexington moved for summary judgment on Somerset's breach of contract and bad faith claims after investigating and ultimately denying parts of the claim. The court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to genuine factual disputes over the cause of the water entry and policy interpretation but granted it on the bad faith claim because Lexington had a reasonable basis for delaying and denying coverage while requesting additional documentation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure