Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North a national defense litigation law firm headquartered in Philadelphia PA

MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER ACT UPDATE: Tackling the Most Common Obstacles to Settlements
By: John P. Morgenstern, Esq.

Since amendments to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP Act”) went into effect earlier this year, defense counsel, insurance adjusters, and Responsible Reporting Entities (“RREs”) have faced many challenges and obstacles to resolving claims and lawsuits amidst the sometimes overwhelming confusion as to certain requirements imposed by the Act. This article will address the five most common points of contention and confusion with solutions for each.
Legislative Updates Affecting Products Liability November 24, 2009
Settler Beware: Navigating the Amendments to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, by John P. Morgenstern, Esq.
For those of us representing governmental entities in personal injury actions, the landscape of case resolutions has changed. On July 1, 2009, amendments to the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (“MSP Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y and 42 C.F.R. § 411, took effect, adding another level of red tape and potential exposure to attorneys and insurance carriers.
The Tenuous Enforceability of Release-Dismissal Agreements, by Andrew B. Adair, Esq.
To prevent or reduce exposure to civil lawsuits, police officers, prosecutors and code enforcement officials sometimes negotiate agreements to dismiss charges in exchange for the release of potential rights to bring a civil rights lawsuit. While such a release sounds appealing, it is important for attorneys and claims professionals defending civil rights claims to understand that these “release-dismissal agreements” are not always enforceable. This article will explore the art of crafting a successful and binding release-dismissal agreement.
Legislative Updates Affecting Governmental Liability
July 21, 2009
This is a synopsis of recent Federal and State legislation and pending bills relating to municipal and government liability.
New Jersey and Pennsylvania Insurance in Brief
July 21, 2009
Here are seven recent case law updates of interest to our industry.
PA Supreme Court Enforces “Household Exclusion” to Preclude Recovery of UIM Benefits Following Motorcycle Accident, by Michael F. Schleigh, Esq.
June 22, 2009
On June 22, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the “household exclusion” clause as it operates to preclude recovery for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. Specifically, the Court found that the policy provision did not violate the intent behind Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) and enforced the right of insurers to determine what risks to underwrite.
Lozano v. City of Hazleton: A Review of Recent U.S. Court Decisions on Express and Implied Preemption, by Carla P. Maresca and Christopher C. Negrete
December 2008
Unauthorized immigration has become one of the most divisive political issues of our time. It has had wide-ranging economic and social effects the United States at all levels: federal, state and local. While the federal government has largely failed to address the impact of the arrival of unauthorized aliens in local communities, some states and municipalities have enacted innovative state laws and local ordinances that sought to address the impact of unauthorized aliens, on a community infrastructure, sometimes through measures that may also discourage unauthorized aliens from settling or remaining in a particular community.
Pa. Supreme Court Issues Important Coverage Decision in Construction Defect Case
November 14, 2006
On October 25, 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an important opinion in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, a construction defect case, holding that there is no coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy for a claim based upon faulty workmanship.
Pennsylvania Arbitration Rules Changes
June 1, 2006
House Bill 750 was signed by Governor Rendell as Act 41 on May 11, 2006 and is effective in 60 days. It amends Section 7361 of Title 42 to provide that civil actions filed in the Courts of Common Pleas must be submitted to compulsory arbitration unless the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000 in first, second or third class counties or $35,000 in all other counties.
Team Effort Compels Dismissal of Environmental Lawsuit
April 9, 2005
Deasey, Mahoney, Valentini & North, Ltd. recently contributed to a major victory on behalf of one of its petrochemical clients. Plaintiff was the owner of a drinking water well in southeastern Pennsylvania.
"Pass-Through" Indemnification Clauses Not Always Enforceable
January 17, 2005
Pennsylvania law has long held that indemnification contracts which purportedly require one party to indemnify for another's negligence are to be narrowly construed and require a "clear and unequivocal" written expression of intent before a party may transfer its liability to another party. In December 2004, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, ruled on whether a contractor's "pass-through" indemnification provision could make its subcontractor liable to all parties in the contractual chain above the subcontractor.
Superior Court: Bad Faith Claims are Subject to a 2-Year Statute of Limitations
November 5, 2004
On November 3, 2004, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in the case of Ash v. Continental Insurance Company, that any suit alleging bad faith against an insurance company must be filed within two years. This ruling follows a number of conflicting decisions handed down by Pennsylvania State and Federal Courts over the years. Some of those rulings held that the correct limitations period was 6 years, while others found that 2 years was the proper yardstick.
Legal Experts Must Now Disclose Their 1099 Income
November 1, 2004
In Pennsylvania, expert witnesses may now be required to divulge the sources and amounts of income that they receive from the attorneys, parties and/or insurance companies who retain them. In an October 20, 2004 decision with potentially sweeping consequences, a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in J.S. and C.S., et. al. v. Whetzel (No. 1649 MDA 2003) that a party may impeach an expert witness by examining his relationship with the counsel calling him and any previous participation the expert has had in certain types of litigation, as long as this inquiry is "relevant to the main issue before a court."