Articles Posted in Pennsylvania

The Philadelphia Phillies mascot is the defendant in a lawsuit stemming from a fan’s injuries at a minor league baseball game. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges that the “Phillie Phanatic” climbed on top of her during a game in 2008 which causing Plaintiff arthritis to get worse which, Plaintiff believes, caused her to need a knee replacement.

Exacerbation of prior arthritis claims are incredibly tough because it so hard for the doctors to really state strong opinions as to whether a trauma accident caused her injuries to worsen. I also imagine there are liability problems. In these kinds of cases, I always fear the lawsuit is filed in part because it is a case against the Philly Phanatic and that sounds a little interesting, so let’s bring a case we otherwise would not. Again, I have no facts to support this, but it makes you wonder when you hear cases with these kinds of facts.

Lawsuits Against the Philadelphia Phillies

A recent Jury Verdict Research study found that the median (midpoint of data, not average) jury award for personal injury trials in Pennsylvania is $40,974. Personal injury plaintiffs in Pennsylvania receive damages in 48% of tort cases that go to trial.

The Insurance Journal reports that a Pennsylvania jury awarded $10.2 million to a teenager who paralyzed in a drunken-driving crash while wearing a lap belt in the backseat of a Volkswagen.

The verdict assigned 51 percent of the liability to the drunk driver, 39 percent to Volkswagen, and 10 percent to the utility company who owned the pole utility to the pole that the driver hit.

There is no way to be sure, but I suspect this case was all about Volkswagen. The drunk driver I’m sure already tendered their policy of insurance, whatever that was. The utility company also settled before trial. But Volkswagen owes Plaintiff over $3.9 million. This sounds like a lot but she has already incurred about $5 million in medical bills.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled last week that an insurance company has a duty to defend negligence allegations against a couple accused of negligently failing to obtain proper psychiatric care for their son, failure to confiscate his handgun, and for failing to notify the police that he possessed a gun. The son later killed five people and seriously injured another who all brought suit against his parents.

Intentional Acts Excluded

The insurance company, Donegal Mutual, argued that the act was intentional, and the policy covered only negligence. The Pennsylvania high court disagreed, finding that the victims’ injuries were caused by an “accident” that constituted an “occurrence” under the policy. While the idea that this is an intentional act for which there is no coverage has facial appeal (because invariably, first-degree murder is intentional), obviously the claim against the parents is not based on their intentional acts.