riederstravis

[riederstravis]

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-FIRST TERM-THE NUMBER RIGHTS-FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE

Adams v. Governor of Del. 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10618 (April 10, 2019) Fuentes, J.-James R. Adams is a resident and a member of the State Bar of Delaware. For some time, he has expressed a desire to be considered for a judicial position in that state. Following the announcement of several judicial vacancies, Adams considered applying but ultimately chose not to because the announcement requires that the candidate be a Republican. Because Adams was neither a Republican nor a Democrat, he concluded that any application he submitted would be futile. Adams brings this suit against the Governor of the State of Delaware to challenge the provision of the Delaware Constitution that effectively limits service on state courts to members of the Democratic and Republican parties. Adams claims that under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Elrod v. Burns and Branti v. Finkel, a provision that limits a judicial candidate’s freedom to associate (or not to associate) with the political party of his or her choice is unconstitutional. The Governor argues that because judges are policymakers, there are no constitutional restraints on his hiring decisions and he should be free to choose candidates based on whether they belong to one of the two major political parties in Delaware – that is, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. We disagree and conclude that judges are not policymakers because whatever decisions judges make in any given case relates to the case under review and not to partisan political interests. We therefore conclude that the portions of Delaware’s constitution that limit Adams’s ability to apply for a judicial position while associating with the political party of his choice violate his First Amendment rights, and we will accordingly affirm in part and reverse in part the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Adams. 

The post CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-FIRST TERM-THE NUMBER RIGHTS-FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATE appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

What the “Truck Driver Shortage” in PA Says About the Trucking Industry

The trucking industry is hurting, causing problems for all motorists. There is a shortage of truck drivers across the country; and while it might seem that fewer trucks on the road should lead to fewer accidents, the result is the opposite.  In Pennsylvania, as well as other states, the high demand for truckers means that drivers who are less experienced and less qualified are being hired, which can lead to an increased number of crashes.

Truck drivers and the motor carriers that hire them have a responsibility to follow the rules to keep our highways safe.  They must drive carefully and avoid problems caused by driver fatigue, driver failure due to health issues, alcohol and drugs, and vehicle failure due to improperly maintained or neglected maintenance. However, the shortage of truck drivers means some new employees are not as well trained or vigilant.

This situation makes our highways more dangerous, as any crash involving large trucks is likely to be devastating and result in serious injuries or death. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 3,986 people died in large truck crashes in 2016.

If you or a loved one has suffered injury or someone has died in a truck crash, you may be entitled to compensation for medical and rehabilitative expenses, past and future lost wages, permanent disability and loss of life’s enjoyment. Multiple parties may be liable, including a negligent truck driver and the company where the driver is employed.

However, due to the complexity and issues involving Pennsylvania personal injury law, your case must be handled correctly by an attorney experienced in truck crashes, or you may never collect the compensation you are entitled to. 

Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann knows the courts and the system and what you need to do to win a good settlement. Our skilled and experienced Pennsylvania truck crash attorneys have represented any number individuals who have been injured or killed in vehicle accidents in Pennsylvania.

We offer a free consultation to discuss the facts of your situation, so contact us at our office or online today.

Why a Shortage of Truckers?

Unemployment is at a record low in America. According to Pennsylvania Motor Truck Association president and CEO Kevin Stewart, the trucking industry is short about 50,000 drivers.

As a result, trucking companies are competing for good employees, but they are hard to find.  When motor carriers cannot find experienced drivers, they are under pressure to hire drivers they ordinarily would not consider.

Companies desperate for drivers may …

Retain drivers who are unfit, aging or have poor records

Increase working hours

Lower qualification standards when hiring

Bend rules about hours-of-service, record keeping or truck maintenance.Many companies are offering more money and benefits to attract employees. However, people are still reluctant to become truck drivers due in part to the strict federal regulations that have come into effect. These regulations limit the number of hours truck drivers can be on the road and require commercial long-distance drivers to install electronic tracking devices (ELDs) in their vehicles to document everything they do.

While the ELDs are supposed to make roads safer by keeping long distance drivers from driving while fatigued, truckers feel that the rules actually make their driving situation worse, lower their productivity, make it more difficult to find places to sleep and park, and even encourage speeding and reckless driving that may increase the chances of a crash.

In addition, some trucking companies put more pressure on their existing truck drivers, often violating restrictions. Drivers may be pressured into turning off their ELDs to stay on the road longer. Companies may hire inexperienced drivers or those with prior traffic citations and convictions, and even overlook issues such as using alcohol or drugs while on the road.

Contact an Attorney at Our Firm

If you or a loved one has been injured or someone has died in a truck crash, you should get immediate legal assistance to protect your rights at every stage of your liability claim. Often, both the at-fault truck driver and the trucking company can be held liable for a truck accident.

The skilled and experienced Pennsylvania truck accident attorney Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann has spent decades sharpening his skills and successfully representing Pennsylvania families who have suffered an injury or loss due to someone else’s negligence. Our attorneys offer personal attention and loyalty to every client, aggressively fighting for their right to compensation. Whether in settlement negotiations or pursuing a favorable trial verdict, we are thoroughly prepared and committed to achieving a just outcome.  With our competent staff, we offer strength in numbers while providing top-notch personal service.

Cliff Rieders is a Past President of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association.  Rieders has won numerous awards and recognition from the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, and he received the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority recognition award.  Cliff Rieders was a founder of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority and served on same for 15 years.  Rieders was a Law Clerk in the federal court system for one of the most well-known and longest serving federal judges in the country, the Honorable Malcolm Muir.  Cliff has received the George F. Douglas Amicus Curiae Award, as well as the Milton D. Rosenberg Award from the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers. Rieders is on committees and organizations that write the law in many fields of practice. He is a Nationally Board certified specialist for Civil Trial and Civil Practice and Procedure, a cum laude graduate of New York University as well as Georgetown University Law Center.

Rieders is admitted in Pennsylvania, New York State, District of Columbia and numerous federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States.  Rieders is a life member of the American Law Institute which publishes recommended legal principles utilized throughout the United States.  Cliff Rieders is the lawyer that other lawyers call for counsel and advice in the medical and hospital malpractice and pharmaceutical/vitamin supplement fields.  Cliff Rieders does substantial work in multi-district litigation in connection with pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

At Rieders Travis, we offer a free consultation to carefully examine the individual facts in your case and determine the best way to handle it. Don’t delay. Contact today by calling or our online contact form to set up your free consultation.

Based in Williamsport, we serve clients throughout the state of Pennsylvania, offering a free consultation on all personal injury matters. More than that, we offer you experience, knowledge, compassion, and a long history of results.

The post What the “Truck Driver Shortage” in PA Says About the Trucking Industry appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

NEGLIGENCE-SLIP AND FALL-MEDICAL EXPERT

Wright v. Residence Inn by Marriott 2019 Pa. Super LEXIS 330 (April 9, 2019) Kunselman, J.-Superior Court reversed trial court in refusing to admit plaintiff’s sole medical expert. The objection to the testimony was that plaintiff’s expert was precluded because the case was so specialized. Marriott argued the doctor was not sufficiently qualified in orthopedic surgery since he was simply an internist. The doctor who was plaintiff’s expert practiced for 37 years and rotated through all specialties including orthopedic surgery. He had been on the staff of at least two hospitals. He had been qualified previously. It was prejudice to not let him testify. The case was sent back for trial. 

The post NEGLIGENCE-SLIP AND FALL-MEDICAL EXPERT appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

PROCEDURE-JURISDICTION-MEDICAL DEVICES

Freeman Maurice Vaughan v. Olympus Am. 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 334 (April 10, 2019) McLaughlin, J.-Lower court reversed in dismissing the case for change of venue. One of the defendants, Olympus America sought dismissal based on forum non conveniens. The lower court abused its discretion in moving the case to North Carolina. Further, Olympus had sufficient contacts in Pennsylvania. This case involved a device where Olympus allegedly had a duty to ensure and an effective and validated reprocessing protocol is disseminated to medical facilities and professionals. Despite of its redesign of the scope, Olympus took no action to update the reprocessing protocol and thus failed to provide end users of the redesigned scope an effective and validated protocol. If Olympus wanted or needed to disseminate information about changes to the reprocessing protocol, it would do so through a related company, Olympus Corporation of America. The court found sufficient contacts and also found that there was no reason to disturb venue. 

The post PROCEDURE-JURISDICTION-MEDICAL DEVICES appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

What are ELDs, and Why are Truckers Angry About Them?

On December 18, 2017, the electronic logging device (ELD) rule took effect, requiring commercial long-distance drivers to install electronic tracking devices in their vehicles. The ELD mandate applies to most Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) drivers, more than 3.5 million across the country.

While the ELDs make it easier to track hours and miles traveled and are supposed to make roads safer by keeping long-distance drivers from driving while fatigued, many drivers are angry about them. Truckers feel that the rules actually make their driving situation worse, lower their productivity, make it more difficult to find places to sleep and park, and even encourage speeding and reckless driving that may increase the chances of a crash.

Any crash involving largely trucks is likely to be devastating and result in serious injuries or death. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 3,986 people died in large truck crashes in 2016. Trucks often weigh 20-30 times as much as passenger cars and have greater ground clearance, which can result in smaller vehicles winding up underneath trucks.

If you or a loved one has suffered injury or someone has died in a truck crash, you may be entitled to compensation for medical and rehabilitative expenses, past and future lost wages, permanent disability and loss of life’s enjoyment. Multiple parties may be liable, including the truck driver and the company where the driver is employed.

However, due to the complexity and issues involving Pennsylvania personal injury law, your case must be handled correctly by an attorney experienced in truck crashes or you may never collect the compensation you are entitled to.

Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann knows the courts and the system and what you need to do to win a good settlement. Our skilled and experienced Pennsylvania truck crash attorneys have represented any number individuals who have been injured or killed in vehicle accidents in Pennsylvania.

We offer a free consultation to discuss the facts of your individual situation, so contact us at our office or online today.

What Are the Problems Truckers Have With ELDS?

Before the ELD mandate, truckers would keep track of their driving in a log-book, with paper and pen. They had the flexibility to get the job done by rounding up their hours in 15-minute increments.

ELDs now track hours electronically, keeping an exact record of where and when miles are driven, so drivers must account for all their time and ensure they do not drive for more than 11 hours a day or work more than 14 hours a day total, and they must take regular breaks. Truckers can no longer do little fudges which gave them flexibility to set their own schedules, drive when necessary and nap when convenient, such as when a receiving company unloads their vehicle.

Truckers are paid by the mile and are not paid for time spent unloading. Previously, they might have been able to put in extra driving hours after unloading. With the new cap of 14 hours of work a day, truckers no longer can get in these extra hours. They are forced to take breaks of 30-minutes every eight hours, even if they had just rested during an unloading period. In addition, the new rules mean many truckers take their 10-hour breaks at the same time, making finding already scarce parking at truck stops much more difficult. So drivers are more likely to speed and drive more recklessly as they attempt to get to their destination before the clock runs out.

Drivers now travel fewer miles a day and make less money. Many veteran truckers are exiting the trucking profession, leaving less-skilled rookie drivers on the road. Truckers feel that any gains in safety from enforced rest are negated by their frustration and increased recklessness and that more crashes will likely be the result.

Contact an Attorney at Our Firm

If you or a loved one has been injured or someone has died in a truck crash, you should get immediate legal assistance to protect your rights at every stage of your liability claim.

The skilled and experienced Pennsylvania truck accident attorney Clifford A. Rieders of Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann has spent decades honing his skills and successfully representing Pennsylvania families who have suffered an injury or loss due to someone else’s negligence. Our attorneys offer personal attention and loyalty to every client, aggressively fighting for their right to compensation. Whether in settlement negotiations or pursuing a favorable trial verdict, we are thoroughly prepared and committed to achieving a just outcome. With our competent staff, we offer strength in numbers while providing top-notch personal service.

Cliff Rieders is a Past President of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. Rieders has won numerous awards and recognition from the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, and he received the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority recognition award. Cliff Rieders was a founder of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority and served on same for 15 years. Rieders was a Law Clerk in the federal court system for one of the most well-known and longest serving federal judges in the country, the Honorable Malcolm Muir. Cliff has received the George F. Douglas Amicus Curiae Award, as well as the Milton D. Rosenberg Award from the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers. Rieders is on committees and organizations that write the law in many fields of practice. He is a Nationally Board certified specialist for Civil Trial and Civil Practice and Procedure, a cum laude graduate of New York University as well as Georgetown University Law Center.

Rieders is admitted in Pennsylvania, New York State, District of Columbia and numerous federal courts including the Supreme Court of the United States. Rieders is a life member of the American Law Institute which publishes recommended legal principles utilized throughout the United States. Cliff Rieders is the lawyer that other lawyers call for counsel and advice in the medical and hospital malpractice and pharmaceutical/vitamin supplement fields. Cliff Rieders does substantial work in multi-district litigation in connection with pharmaceutical products and medical devices.

At Rieders Travis, we offer a free consultation to carefully examine the individual facts in your case and determine the best way to handle it. Don’t delay. Contact today by calling or our online contact form to set up your free consultation.

Based in Williamsport, we serve clients throughout the state of Pennsylvania, offering a free consultation on all personal injury matters. More than that, we offer you experience, knowledge, compassion, and a long history of results.

The post What are ELDs, and Why are Truckers Angry About Them? appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT-“REGARDED AS” THEORY-JURY VERDICT IN CIVIL RIGHTS

Robinson v. First State Cmty. Action Agency, 2019 3rd Cir. LEXIS 9503 (April 1, 2019) Fuentes, J.-Tamra Robinson was told by her manager Karen Garrett that her work performance was so poor that “you either don’t know what you’re doing, or you have a disability, or [you’re] dyslexic.” Taking Garrett’s words seriously, Robinson, who had never before considered the possibility she might have a disability, decided to undergo testing for dyslexia. She sent Garrett an evaluation that concluded that Robinson had symptoms consistent with dyslexia, and requested certain accommodations from the manager of human resources. She was told that any diagnosis she received would not prevent her from performing her work in a satisfactory manner, and she was advised to focus on improving her performance. Weeks later, she was fired. During the litigation in the District Court between Robinson and her former employer, First State Community Action Agency, Robinson acknowledged that she could not prove she was dyslexic. She proceeded on a different theory, that she was perceived or regarded as dyslexic by her employer and was therefore entitled to a reasonable accommodation the same way someone who was dyslexic would have been. While we have previously recognized the validity of a “regarded as” disability case theory in cases arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 made clear that a “regarded as” plaintiff is not statutorily entitled to accommodation. Despite this, both parties proceeded under the “regarded as” case theory throughout litigation, trial and post-trial briefing. Only now does First State seek to unring the bell and overturn the jury’s verdict because the jury was instructed that the “regarded as” case theory was valid. We hold that First State has waived this argument because of its continued acquiescence to Robinson’s case theory, its encouragement of the adoption of the very jury instruction to which it now objects, and its failure to include this error in its post-trial briefing. We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Court.

The post AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT-“REGARDED AS” THEORY-JURY VERDICT IN CIVIL RIGHTS appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

PROCEDURE-FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976-SERVICE

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2293 (March 26, 2019) ALITO, J.-This case concerns the requirements applicable to a particular method of serving civil process on a foreign state. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), a foreign state may be served by means of a mailing that is “addressed and dispatched … to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” 28 U.S.C. §1608(a)(3). The question now before us is whether this provision is satisfied when a service packet that names the foreign minister is mailed to the foreign state’s embassy in the United States. We hold that it is not. Most naturally read, §1608(a)(3) requires that a mailing be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the minister’s home country. 

The post PROCEDURE-FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976-SERVICE appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-EXCESS COVERAGE-UMBRELLA POLICY-UNDERINSURANCE

Warrick v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49716 (March 25, 2019) Kenney, J.-Plaintiff Richard Warrick brings an action for breach of contract and bad faith against Defendant Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company for denying his claim of underinsured motorist coverage following an accident in November 2016 with an allegedly underinsured motorist. Plaintiff claims that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s purchase of Supplemental Liability Protection from Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia, LLC, to whom Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company issued an excess policy. Even if Empire had not separately excluded underinsured motorist coverage, it would be excluded from the MVFRL’s requirement that it provide underinsured motorist coverage or that it use the written rejection form because it is an excess policy and not subject to the requirements of the MVFRL. 

The post INSURANCE-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW-EXCESS COVERAGE-UMBRELLA POLICY-UNDERINSURANCE appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

EVIDENCE-SPOLIATION-ADVERSE INFERENCE

Marshall v. Brown’s IA 2019, Pa. Super LEXIS 279 (March 27, 2019) Bowes, J.-Harriet Marshall appeals from the July 10, 2017 judgment in favor of Appellee Brown’s IA, LLC, and alleges that she is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred in refusing to give an adverse inference instruction based on Appellee’s spoliation of videotape evidence. We vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial. As we stated in Mt. Olivet, supra, at 1269 (quoting Nation-Wide Check Corp. v. Forest Hills Distributors, Inc., 692 F.2d 214, 218 (1st Cir. 1982)), “[s]poliation sanctions arise out of ‘the common sense observation that a party who has notice that evidence is relevant to litigation and who proceeds to destroy evidence is more likely to have been threatened by that evidence than is a party in the same position who does not destroy the evidence.’” Ms. Marshall asked the court for the least severe spoliation sanction, an adverse inference instruction. On the facts herein, it was warranted, and the court abused its discretion in refusing the charge. Judgement vacated. Case remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

The post EVIDENCE-SPOLIATION-ADVERSE INFERENCE appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-NEGLIGENCE-MAINTENANCE OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PREVENTING RUN-OFF

Kowalski v. TOA Pa. 2019 Pa. Super LEXIS 281 (March 27, 2019) Bowes, J.-The Superior Court affirmed the entry of judgment on trespass claim against Condo Association, reversed the order of nominal damages and remanded for new trial as to the damages on the Condo Association’s cross claim against TOA. Brian Kowalski owned property downhill from Liberty Hill’s Condominiums. Mr. Kowalski sued for surface water run-off. Mr. Kowalski said that the trial court erred in concluding that his breach of contract and negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court’s termination that the breach of contract claim expired in 2011 and was therefore barred by the four year statute of limitations was sustained. Likewise, the two year statute of limitations for negligence was sustained. The record did not evidence a permanent change or permanent injury to Mr. Kowalski’s property as the result of the increased surface water flowing from the Liberty Hills Development. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment against the Condo Association because of a continuing trespass that included an overflowing pond they didn’t do anything about. The trial court determined entry of nonsuit on the trespass claim was error because Mr. Kowalski established that excess water run-off from the Liberty Hills constituted a continuing trespass. Liability should have been opposed against TOA for the continuing trespass. Section 1621 of the Restatement of Torts clearly provided for the imposition of liability on TOA, as an entity which developed Liberty Hills and constructed the storm water management system in a manner which caused excess surface water to flow onto Mr. Kowalski’s property.  Liability is subject to the applicable statute of limitations. Mr. Kowalski commenced the action July 2013. His recovery is limited to the actual injury suffered during the two years prior to the filing of the action. TOA is not liable for specific continuing trespass claim encompassed by the present action. It is not responsible. 

The post STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-NEGLIGENCE-MAINTENANCE OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PREVENTING RUN-OFF appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

EVIDENCE-HEARSAY-BUSINESS RECORD INCEPTION-BANKS

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. James Bernard Wicker & Beryl G. Wicker, 2019 Supreme Ct. W.D., (March 28, 2019) Baer, J. – In this case, a party that picked up a bank loan attempted to authenticate documents originally created by the first lender. The Supreme Court did not adopt a bright line rule forbidding the authentication of documents recorded by a third party, nor do we endorse an automatic incorporation doctrine. Instead we will continue to allow our trial courts to utilize their broad discretion in evidentiary matters by applying the business record exception of Rule 803(6) and the Act to determine if the witness “can provide sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness” subject to the opponent rebutting the evidence with any other circumstances indicating a lack of trustworthiness. In Re Indyk’s Estate, 413 A.2d at 373. We additionally observe that Rule 803(6) provides litigants with an alternative method of authenticating documents through the use of Rule 902(11) and (12)’s certification process. Use of this process would arguably reduce the risk that a trial court will find supporting documents to be insufficiently trustworthy based on aspects of the specific documents, the recording process, or the witness’s familiarity with them. Nevertheless, we emphasize that Rule 803(6) does not require certification but rather offers it as an alternative. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the documents and allowing Schonleber’s testimony under the facts of this case. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Superior Court. 

The post EVIDENCE-HEARSAY-BUSINESS RECORD INCEPTION-BANKS appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT-DEBT COLLECTOR-ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTERESTS

Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2090 (March 20, 2019) Breyer, J.  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act regulates “debt collector[s].” 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6); see 91 Stat. 874, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et. seq. A “debt collector,” the Act says is “any person … in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts.” §1692a(6). This definition, however, goes on to say that “[f]or the purpose of section 1692f(6)” (a separate provision of the Act), “[the] term [debt collector] also includes any person … in any business the principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests.” Ibid. The question before us concerns this last sentence. Does it mean that one principally involved in “the enforcement of security interests” is not a debt collector (except “[f]or the purpose of section 1692f(6)”)? If so, numerous other provisions of the Act do not apply. Or does it simply reinforce the fact that those principally involved in the enforcement of security interests are subject to §1692f(6) in addition to the Act’s other provisions? This case involved a law firm proceeding on nonjudicial foreclosure of a home on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank. There are certain requirements for collectors which the Supreme Court of the United States said do not apply here. The court basically said that nonjudicial foreclosure does not invoke the requirements of the Act. 

The post FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT-DEBT COLLECTOR-ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTERESTS appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES & CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW-SUBSURFACE MINERAL RIGHTS-ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ACTION-ANTI-TRUST LAW

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Commonwealth, 2019 Pa. Cmwlth. LEXIS 236 (March 15, 2019) Ceisler, J.-In these combined interlocutory appeals by permission, we address two issues of first impression pertaining to Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Law or UTPCPL). The first is whether Appellee Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General (Attorney General), can bring a cause of action against lessees pursuant to the UTPCPL, due to allegedly wrongful conduct perpetrated by the lessees in the context of leasing subsurface mineral rights from private landowners. The second issue is whether the Attorney General can bring a cause of action against those lessees, pursuant to the UTPCPL, for alleged violations of antitrust law. The Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County (Trial Court) answered both questions in the affirmative; however, after thorough consideration, we affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold that the Attorney General was permitted to file a UTPCPL-based lawsuit against Appellants, but can only pursue antitrust claims through the UTPCPL where the so-called “antitrust” conduct qualifies as “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” as those terms have been either statutorily defined in the UTPCPL or by the Attorney General through the administrative rulemaking process. Thus, in light of the requirement that, in order to sustain a demurrer, “it must appear with certainty that the law will permit no recovery, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving part[.]” Christ the King Manor, 911 A.2d at 633. We reverse the Trial Court regarding its decision to overrule Appellants’ demurrers to Count III of the Attorney General’s Second Amended Complaint., but otherwise affirm the Trial Court. Furthermore, we direct Appellants to each file an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint within 20 days of this matter’s record being returned to the Trial Court. 

The post UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES & CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW-SUBSURFACE MINERAL RIGHTS-ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ACTION-ANTI-TRUST LAW appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS ACT OF 2003-STANDING

Ahmed Kamal v J. Crew Group, Inc.; J. Crew, Inc.; J. Crew Intermediate, LLC; J. Crew International, Inc.; J. Crew Operating Corp.; J. Crew Services, Inc.; Chinos Acquisition Corp.; Chino’s Holdings, Inc., 2019 3rd Cir. 2018 (March 8, 2019) Scirica, J.-Enacted to combat credit card and identity theft, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 203 (FACTA) prohibits anyone who accepts credit or debit cards as payment from printing more than the last five digits of a customer’s credit card number on the receipt. 15 U.S.C. §1681c(g). Plaintiff-Appellant Ahmed Kamal brought this suit after receiving three receipts from Defendants-Appellees J. Crew Group, Inc. (and related entities) that included both the first six and last four digits of his credit card number. The District Court dismissed Kamal’s suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing based on its determination that Kamal did not suffer a concrete injury from the alleged violation. We agree, and we will affirm on that issue. We will vacate and remand, however, for the District Court to dismiss Kamal’s complaint without prejudice.

The post FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS ACT OF 2003-STANDING appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-ARBITRATION

Morse v. Fisher Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 244 (March 15, 2019) Murray, J.-Dismissal of an arbitration action for statute of limitations purposes was proper. There was no stay where the court had previously granted POs. When the complaint was filed in 2009, appellant could have sought enforcement of the arbitration agreement by filing POs or Petition to Compel Arbitration. If the Petition to Compel had been filed, and the court granted it, the matter would have included a stay of proceedings. However, appellees filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal. The court agreed with appellees that when the court sustained the POs and dismissed the complaint in 2009, the action was not stayed. No appeal was filed either.  

The post STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-ARBITRATION appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

PRODUCTS LIABILITY-WARNINGS-MARITIME LAW

Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. v. Devries, 2019, U.S. LEXIS 2087 (March 19, 2019) Kavanaugh, J.-In maritime tort cases, we act as a common-law court, subject to any controlling statutes enacted by Congress. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 507-508 (2008). This maritime tort case raises a question about the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn. The manufacturers here produced equipment such as pumps, blowers, and turbines for three Navy ships. The equipment required asbestos insulation or asbestos parts in order to function as intended. When used on the ships, the equipment released asbestos fibers into the air. Two Navy veterans who were exposed to asbestos on the ships developed cancer and later died. The veterans’ families sued the equipment manufacturers, claiming that the manufacturers were negligent in failing to warn of the dangers of asbestos. We agree with the plaintiffs. In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger. The District Court did not apply that test when granting summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers. Although we do not agree with all of the reasoning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, we affirm its judgment requiring the District Court to reconsider its prior grants of summary judgment to the defendant manufacturers. 

The post PRODUCTS LIABILITY-WARNINGS-MARITIME LAW appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.

[riederstravis]

ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE-ESTATE DOCUMENTS

The Estate of Philip F. Young and Brinton Young, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Philip F. Young v. Robert Louis, Esquire and Saul Ewing, LLP, 2018 Pa. Super. (December 31, 2018) Stabile, J.-Appellant Brinton Young, both individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Philip F. Young, appeals from an order granting summary judgment in this legal malpractice action in favor of Appellees Robert Louis, Esquire and Saul Ewing, LLP. Appellant argues that Appellees’ negligent preparation of estate documents prevented him receiving all assets that Philip Young intended him to receive from Philip’s trust. We affirm. Appellees represented Philip, not Appellant. Philip executed a will in 2006 naming Appellant the sole beneficiary and bequeathing Windy Hill, Philip’s tangible personal property, and a residuary interest to Appellant. In 2006 or early 2007, Appellees drafted an amendment to the Trust that made Appellant the sole beneficiary of the Trust. Philip never signed the amended Trust. As in Agnew, the fact that Appellant was named as sole beneficiary in the unexecuted amended Trust does not give him standing to sue Appellees. It also deserves mention that Appellant received everything he was entitled to receive under the executed 1951 Trust and executed 2006 will. The law does not entitle him to anything more. 

The post ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE-ESTATE DOCUMENTS appeared first on Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Waters & Dohrmann.