Resolutions

At FHMS, we focus on moving each matter to resolution at the earliest practical opportunity, whether by risk transfer, trial, dispositive motion, alternative dispute resolution, or direct negotiation with the opposition. Our approach is dependent on the facts of each case and the goals of our client. We study our cases to identify the true issues and best defenses in dispute so that the case can be efficiently postured for resolution.

We are committed to sharing data with our business partners. We collect data on file cycle time, fees, costs and indemnity. We sort the data by type of case and injury severity. We want to know what worked… and what didn’t. Our goal is simple: Better, faster.

• Quinn McCusker obtained summary judgment in a wrongful death case in New Jersey. The decedent’s estate claimed that a property owner engaged in harassing conduct once the decedent-tenant failed to pay rent. Prior to the decedent’s death in 2018, the owner filed a landlord tenant action to remove the decedent. Ultimately, the landlord did not obtain an eviction order because the decedent agreed to voluntarily vacate the premises. Upon being served the warrant of removal the day the decedent agreed to move out, the decedent took his own life. The plaintiffs alleged this was due to the property owner’s outrageous conduct. Quinn argued that the plaintiff failed to supply evidence sufficient to prove outrageous conduct or an expert opinion sufficient to link the alleged conduct to the suicide. The court agreed, entering judgment in favor of the property owner and against the plaintiffs on all counts, including wrongful death, negligence, negligent & intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages.
• Quinn McCusker obtained summary judgment in a New Jersey declaratory judgment action. The underlying plaintiff sustained serious injuries when attacked by a dog owned by her neighbor’s housemate.  Early in the underlying action, the plaintiff sought to name the property owner’s insurance carrier as a direct defendant and for a finding that its policy covered the dog’s owner for plaintiff’s injury. Meanwhile, the dog’s owner proceeded to litigate the personal injury action without seeking coverage under the homeowner’s policy. After successfully petitioning the court to dismiss plaintiff’s direct action against the insurance carrier, Quinn filed a declaratory judgment action against the dog’s owner and the plaintiff seeking a determination of no coverage. Quinn subsequently obtained a default judgment against his client’s insured.  This then led to the court’s grant of summary judgment against the dog’s owner, as well as the injured plaintiff based on the finding that neither were entitled to coverage under the policy.
• Gregory Hirtzel and Matthew Vodzak successfully defended a federal appeal in a First Amendment matter. FHMS represented a school district whose former solicitor (retained law firm) sued after its contract was not renewed. The solicitor claimed that its termination was an illegal act of political-patronage discrimination. The solicitor had campaigned for a slate of school-board candidates who lost in the school-board election. After the election, the new board opted to terminate the solicitor’s contract. The district court granted FHMS’s partial motion to dismiss, narrowing the claims subject to discovery. After the close of discovery, the district court granted FHMS’s motion for summary judgment. The solicitor appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On appeal, the solicitor argued that the school district, a governmental entity, could not terminate its own solicitor for activity protected by the First Amendment. FHMS argued that the solicitor was a “policymaking” position since it was the lawyer for the school district and was involved in a host of high-level managerial decisions. Government employees or contractors who occupy policymaking positions may be terminated without violating the First Amendment under Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980). The Third Circuit affirmed. The Third Circuit agreed with FHMS that the solicitor was a policymaker. That court also agreed with FHMS that the solicitor waived or forfeited other arguments. As a result, the Third Circuit affirmed judgment in favor of the school district. The case is Black & Davison v. Chambersburg Area School District, No. 20-2621.
• Matthew Vodzak and Richard Santosusso successfully convinced a court to dismiss a lawsuit against FHMS’s clients for lack of personal jurisdiction. FHMS’s clients were a Michigan-based trucking company and its owner-operator. The plaintiff sued FHMS’s clients in Philadelphia county for allegedly causing an accident in western Maryland. FHMS removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds that FHMS’s clients subjected themselves to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania by delivering a handful of loads per year. The court rejected this argument, and granted the motion to dismiss on the briefs without requiring oral argument or discovery.

• Joseph Fowler, Lisa Prince, and Matthew Vodzak successfully obtained dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in a wrongful-death case brought by one of Philadelphia’s leading plaintiff’s firms. FHMS’s client, a heavy-equipment sales company based in another state, purchased a piece of equipment. The equipment was then sold for auction by a third party to one of the codefendants, who transported it for use at the site of the accident. The equipment was then involved in the fatal accident, leading to a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia County. FHMS argued that Pennsylvania lacked personal jurisdiction over its client. After briefing and jurisdictional discovery, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted FHMS’s motion to dismiss.
• Joseph Fowler and Matthew Vodzak secured dismissal in a lawsuit concerning contribution. A friend of FHMS’s client was injured when he tripped in a hole in the basement floor of a residential house. The friend sued the landlord, alleging that he knew of, or created, the defect. The landlord, in turn, sued FHMS’s client, alleging that the client was wholly or partially at fault for the friend’s injuries. FHMS successfully removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion on the basis that the landlord could not seek contribution in a separate action unless and until it overpaid a judgment or a settlement of the claims against it by the injured party.
• Lee Eckell obtained dismissal in a case involving a motor vehicle accident and a construction site. Plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle hit uneven pavement in a construction zone. We obtained an Affidavit of Non-Involvement stating that the accident site was outside of our client’s work zone. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to a dismissal within two months of the suit being filed and the claim was closed thereafter.
• Damian Taranto recently obtained voluntary dismissal in a construction accident case. FHMS defended a subcontractor performing work at a hospital where the nurse Plaintiff claimed to have suffered significant cognitive injuries after being struck by a falling metal stud support. We produced documents that showed that our client’s limited work at the facility did not include the accident site. We successfully negotiated dismissal and avoided significant litigation costs and expenses.
• Damian Taranto obtained voluntary dismissal in a construction accident case involving an alleged gas tank explosion. FHMS represented a major distributor of industrial, medical, and specialty gases. The Plaintiff claimed that the subject tank was defective and caused the fire that resulted in severe injuries. We were able to prove that the tank was supplied by a 3^rd party distributor and execute a Stipulation of Dismissal.
• Damian Taranto successfully resolved a Dram Shop case for his client. The Plaintiff claimed to have been overserved by the insured’s employees, resulting in a vehicular crash where the Plaintiff sustained significant back injuries. Despite initial unsuccessful settlements pre-litigation, once defendants had the case transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, settlement negotiations began again. Additional discovery and remaining preliminary objections led to the case being settled for a fraction of the demand prior to trial.
• Andrew Spaulding and Alison Fleming recently obtained summary judgement in a Philadelphia slip-and-fall action. FHMS represented a prominent residential landlord and property manager.  Plaintiff was a postal worker who made a six figure demand after slipping on an icy ramp outside of the building during a snow event. FHMS conducted discovery and depositions which established the elements of the Hills and Ridges Defense. FHMS filed a motion for summary judgement arguing that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed based upon Hills and Ridges Doctrine.  The court agreed and granted FHMS’s motion for summary judgement holding that FHMS’s client had no duty to clear the snow and ice off its premises during a snowstorm.
• Andrew Spaulding, Alison Fleming, and Matthew Vodzak recently obtained dismissal of a subrogation action filed against FHMS’s clients, a commercial landlord and property manager. A tenant’s insurance company filed a subrogation action in Philadelphia state court action against FHMS’s clients for claims from a fire loss. FHMS successfully argued that the terms of the lease between its clients and the insurance company’s tenants waived all subrogation rights, and that the anti-subrogation rule barred the claims.
• Allan Molotsky and Matthew Vodzak recently obtained summary judgment in Philadelphia in an insurance coverage action. FHMS represented an insurance company that insured a restaurant under a general liability policy. One of the restaurant’s employees killed a co-employee while at work. The deceased employee’s estate sued the restaurant, and the restaurant sought insurance coverage from FHMS’s client. FHMS successfully argued that the terms of its client’s insurance policy excluded coverage for the deceased employee’s lawsuit against the restaurant. The court granted FHMS’s motion for summary judgment, and held that FHMS’s client had no duty to defend the restaurant.
• Matthew Vodzak litigated a successful appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff was at the home of FHMS’s client for a personal-training session. The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk, and fractured her leg. FHMS successfully obtained summary judgment in the trial court, and the plaintiff appealed. The Superior Court accepted FHMS’s arguments that the plaintiff had waived some of her arguments, and that she failed to present sufficient evidence to show that FHMS’s clients knew or should have known about the ice on the sidewalk. The plaintiff did not request the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to hear the appeal.
• Lee Eckell successfully resolved a construction injury case where a 27-year-old Plaintiff sustained serious injuries after falling from a roof. Plaintiff’s injuries included fractures to the left and right wrists, orbital bone and sphenoid bone; bilateral knee contusions with left distal vastus medialis/oblique muscle tear; and post-concussion syndrome, with alleged cognitive impairment and depression. The defense was successfully tendered to a subcontractor with full reimbursement of defense costs to date.
• Lee Eckell saved time and costs by swiftly settling a motor vehicle accident case wherein Plaintiff was t-boned by Co-Defendant as he pulled out of a shopping center. Eckell’s client, a tractor trailer, was illegally parked and obstructed the view of both drivers before the accident. Plaintiff sustained rib fractures and cartilage damage, and underwent bracing and injections to treat his injuries. In spite of his client being brought into the case after discovery and depositions were already complete, Eckell was able to quickly obtain limited discovery, evaluate the case, and settle the matter without needing to perform much further discovery. The matter was settled only three months after the case was opened.
• Joseph Fowler secured a defense verdict after a three-week trial in Philadelphia County with an 18-million-dollar demand. Plaintiff sustained significant and permanent injuries after a tractor that he hot-wired ran over his foot. He alleged a crush injury to his foot, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, and an injury to his neck that required a cervical fusion. The case proceeded against multiple defendants on claims of negligence, product liability, and breach of warranty. FHMS was able to get the product liability and warranty claims dismissed through a Motion for Summary Judgment. A defense verdict was secured through pointing to the dealer’s testimony that responsibility to inspect the tractor in question was theirs.
• Lee Eckell successfully defended a local pest control company as co-counsel during a two-week negligence trial involving the alleged improper use of a pesticide during a termite application.  Plaintiff alleged that FHMS’ client failed to properly seal cracks in the basement foundation wall of the split level home before applying the pesticide which allegedly caused it to migrate into the HVAC system in the basement and then throughout the home.  Plaintiff alleged violation of the New Jersey Regulations applicable to licensed pest control applicators.  Alleged damages included neurological injuries, emotional distress and property damage.  Plaintiff and her experts theorized that the home was contaminated such that it had to be demolished and rebuilt. Plaintiff and her experts further theorized that all of the contents inside the home were damaged.  The demand prior to trial was in excess of seven figures.  During trial, FHMS and its co-counsel cross-examined Plaintiff’s liability experts regarding the fact that swab samples and air testing done in the home after the application failed to identify dangerous levels of the pesticide and that the experts improperly characterized New Jersey’s pest control regulations.  FHMS and its co-counsel also cross-examined Plaintiff’s medical experts regarding their failure to properly take into account Plaintiff’s prior medical history into their causation opinions.  The case settled after Plaintiff’s case for a fraction of the demand prior to trial.
• Lee Eckell successfully defended a national supermarket wholesaler at trial in an automobile negligence case. Plaintiff, a married forty-six year old union electrician with four children, had not returned to work after being rear-ended by Eckell’s client. He asserted a multi-million dollar economic loss claim along with permanent injuries to the neck, vestibular system and cognitive function. Plaintiff’s wife also made a claim for loss of consortium. During the four week trial, Eckell argued on behalf of his client that a phantom vehicle was at fault for the accident.  In addition, Eckell called expert and fact witnesses to support the defense that Plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury as alleged.  Prior to trial, the parties attended mediation where there was a multi-million dollar demand.  While a pre-trial offer was made, the matter settled for significantly less than the pre-trial offer after the jury had reached a verdict, but before the verdict was read to the Court by the jury.
• Damian Taranto used mediation to settle a motor vehicle accident case involving the collision of a Mack truck (driven by Plaintiff and owned by Taranto’s client) with a minivan. The collision was the result of the failure of the Mack truck’s braking system. Taranto argued that rather than his client, the body shop performing repair work on the truck was at fault for the accident for failing to tow the truck. He argued that Plaintiff was also at fault for failure to have the truck towed and properly inspected, and for speeding prior to the mechanical breakdown. Through mediation, Taranto avoided significant expenses for extensive discovery, lengthy depositions and medical examinations.
• Lee Eckell successfully defended a national supermarket wholesaler at trial in an automobile negligence case. Plaintiff, a married forty-six year old union electrician with four children, had not returned to work after being rear-ended by Eckell’s client. He asserted a multi-million dollar economic loss claim along with permanent injuries to the neck, vestibular system, and cognitive function.  Plaintiff’s wife also made a claim for loss of consortium.  During the four week trial, Eckell argued on behalf of his client that a phantom vehicle was at fault for the accident. In addition, Eckell called expert and fact witnesses to support the defense that Plaintiff did not sustain a permanent injury as alleged. Prior to trial, the parties attended mediation where there was a multi-million dollar demand. While a pre-trial offer was made, the matter settled for significantly less than the pre-trial offer after the jury had reached a verdict, but before the verdict was read to the Court by the jury.
• Frances Lettieri argued a case to the Superior Court in which our client, a large insurance carrier, wrote a general liability policy to a daycare. The daycare and its principals entered into a series of agreements related to a lease, which it allegedly breached. The daycare’s landlord brought suit to enforce these agreements. FHMS filed a declaratory judgment action on our client’s behalf, seeking a declaration that the landlord’s claims against the daycare were not covered by the general liability policy. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the landlord’s complaint failed to allege an occurrence covered by the carrier’s policy. The landlord appealed to the Superior Court.  The Superior Court affirmed judgment entered in our client’s favor, finding that the daycare’s alleged breaching of the series of agreements was non-accidental conduct not covered by the general liability policy. The Superior Court further agreed with arguments raised by FHMS that the trial court had rejected, i.e., that the principals of the daycare were not covered by the policy because they were sued in their individual capacities.
• Lee Eckell extricated his developer from a case in which a construction worker fell three stories and suffered severe injuries. When a subcontractor’s carrier repeatedly ignored a proper indemnification request, suit was brought against them. The carrier eventually accepted the tender without a reservation of rights and repaid the self-insured developer for legal fees and expenses.
• Joseph Fowler and Damian Taranto used a 2 day mediation to settle a multi-million dollar case arising from a workplace accident. The case involved a power surge conveyor, life changing injuries, multiple defendants, and significant legal and factual disputes. The first day of mediation was with defendants only, in order to establish a hierarchy of liability. The second day, with plaintiff’s present, allowed the mediator to push through difficult arguments involving comparative negligence, medical causation and legal issues including the Statute of Repose.
• Gregory Hirtzel settled a case within five months of assignment. Plaintiff was a 48 year old service manager. He alleged a variety of injuries but his primary complaint was injury to his cervical spine.  He had complained intermittently of cervical pain before the accident, most recently as a year prior, but work records did not reflect that he missed time from work because of that condition. The plaintiff underwent anterior cervical discectomy at C5/6 after the accident. He did not return to work as a service manager after the surgery and subsequently was awarded social security disability. Immediately upon assignment, aggressive records discovery was conducted, the results of which raised considerable questions on causation.  With the pre-accident history in hand we proposed mediation without a deposition and plaintiff agreed. The case settled within five months of assignment for a number both sides deemed to be fair.
• Lee Eckell settled a case after opening statements and testimony of Plaintiff.  Demand was $75,000 when the case came in and the case settled for $7,500 at trial.  Medical bills were $7,900.   We developed significant notice defenses in this slip and fall case during discovery and trial.
• Lee Eckell resolved a significant construction injury case involving serious injury to Plaintiff, who fell from an elevated position while framing a residential home.  The plaintiff suffered significant injuries that required surgery.  We successfully tendered the defense to a subcontractor and received not only complete defense and indemnification, but reimbursement of all defense costs for the client.
• Joseph FowlerandDamian Taranto obtained voluntary dismissal in an industrial accident case involving catastrophic injuries less than ninety days after assignment.  The Plaintiff had his arm amputated after reaching into an unguarded portion of a conveyor system and sued various entities involved in the construction, design and manufacturing of the system.  We investigated the accident, determined that our client could not be held liable under Plaintiff’s theory of liability and successfully negotiated dismissal before discovery commenced without having to make a financial contribution.
• Joseph Fowler settled an automobile accident a month after assignment.  We quickly identified liability on behalf of our insured driver and settled for a fraction of Plaintiff’s demand before filing a responsive pleading or conducting discovery.
• Andrew Spaulding, in a defective maintenance case involving serious back injuries, successfully pursued defense and contractual indemnity strategies.  Before significant discovery was conducted, we tendered the case to our client’s tenant under a lease agreement requiring the tenant to maintain the property.  The tenant and its insurer accepted without a reservation of rights, settled the case without any contribution from our client and agreed to reimburse our client for fees and costs.
• Andrew Spaulding filed preliminary objections in a trucking case where a multi-vehicle accident caused Plaintiff to suffer traumatic brain injuries.  The Court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed all claims against our clients that alleged violations FMCSA Regulations and state motor vehicle laws.  This ruling narrowed Plaintiff’s cause of action against our clients and prevented Plaintiff from claiming that our clients were negligent because they violated applicable motor vehicle rules.
• Quinn McCusker received a no cause/defense verdict for his client after a jury trial in Essex County, New Jersey. The plaintiff fell on interior stairs in an apartment building owned by our client. The 55 year old union insulator suffered a closed fracture of the right patella and a ruptured right patellar tendon which required surgical repair. The plaintiff also brought a claim for 10 months of lost wages. The last demand in the case was for $250,000. Liability allegations included improper installation of a non-code compliant handrail and improper maintenance of the common area stairs. The defense presented by Mr. McCusker emphasized plaintiff’s decades of accident free usage of the steps which included thousands of safe trips without reported incident. Our liability expert countered the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, emphasizing   plaintiff’s testimony that his hand was on the railing at the time of his fall. Thus, the railing  performed it’s essential function, regardless of specific code compliance. After a three day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for the defense.
• Frances Lettieri argued a case to the Superior Court in which our client, a large insurance carrier wrote a general liability policy to a daycare. The daycare and its principals entered into a series of agreements related to a lease, which it allegedly breached. The daycare’s landlord brought suit to enforce these agreements. FHMS filed a declaratory judgment action on our client’s behalf, seeking a declaration that the landlord’s claims against the daycare were not covered by the general liability policy. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the landlord’s complaint failed to allege an occurrence covered by the carrier’s policy. The landlord appealed to the Superior Court.  The Superior Court affirmed judgment entered in our client’s favor, finding that the daycare’s alleged breaching of the series of agreements was non-accidental conduct not covered by the general liability policy. The Superior Court further agreed with arguments raised by FHMS that the trial court had rejected, i.e., that the principals of the daycare were not covered by the policy because they were sued in their individual capacities.
• Joseph McNulty  at our Allentown office handled a case alleging false imprisonment and slander. We took a firm “no pay” position and, after the plaintiff died of unrelated causes, the family agreed to withdraw the case.
• Gregory Hirtzel at our Lancaster office postured a difficult case for settlement. Plaintiff sued our  carpet cleaning company, claiming she became ill from the fumes. Research revealed that the chemical manufacturer had problems with the product. We reached out to the manufacturer, and they agreed to provide us with settlement funds. We are now negotiating resolution, and asking for reimbursement of our defense costs.
• Joseph McNulty facilitated the resolution of a case involving chain collision accident case in which we were pushed into Plaintiff’s vehicle. After discussion with our client, we skipped any pleading or discovery and began convincing defense counsel to secure his agreement that his carrier would accept 100% liability and got both parties to stipulate insured out of case.  No pleadings filed, no discovery performed, and the case was closed in 2 months.
• Allan Molotsky and Frances Lettieri handled an uninsured motorist case which had a bad faith component. The case involved the death of a 21 year old.  We prevailed on Summary Judgment and the plaintiff’s appealed to the 3rd circuit. The case was settled for a fraction of the value before the significant costs of appellate briefing and argument were incurred.
• Joseph Fowler and Matt Vodzak were able to have our defense assumed by a co-defendant in a case involving lengthy and contentious negotiations. After the tender was accepted, we negotiated the payment of a significant portion of our fees.
• Gregory  Hirtzel obtained summary judgment in a policy limits demand UIM claim which was removed to Federal Court. He obtained this summary judgment within 3 months of the assignment, before any discovery was conducted, by convincing the court and parties to decide the legal issue on stipulated facts.
• Lee Eckell, who is resident in our New Jersey office, successfully resolved a number of cases for our client, a national grocery and retail chain. Several cases were resolved without any discovery being performed. Another significant case was settled within 4 months of assignment. In that time frame, we were able to confirm the liability issues, obtain and review medical and lien information and obtain a contribution from an unrepresented co-defendant.
• Joseph McNulty obtained an affidavit in a case in which we represented a governmental entity from our client’s township manager stating that the accident occurred on private property. He then convinced Plaintiff and 3 defendants to dismiss our client before discovery commenced.
• Rachel Rosenzweig  resolved a case where a regional transportation company was sued. Plaintiff was a passenger in a bus operated by our driver that was impacted by co-Defendant. While the insured had little liability, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to dismiss them because they provided the basis for venue in Philadelphia County. We were able to resolve the case for what we estimated  to be the cost of deposing the co-defendant and preparing a motion for summary judgment. We settled without responding to discovery and conducted only the plaintiff’s deposition. .
• Joseph Fowler resolved a trip and fall case where plaintiff demanded $225,000 and claimed Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. We defended on liability and countered that the injury was a bone bruise. The case settled on the first day of trial for $19,000, within 9 months of assignment.
• Joseph Fowler and Rachel Rosenzweig  resolved a case involving an  accident at an airport, in which a vehicle owned by a janitorial services contractor of our airline client collided with our airline’s vehicle. We joined the contractor as a defendant on contractual defense and indemnity theory, and successfully tendered out defense to them. The contractor accepted tender without reservation of rights and has agreed to reimburse our client for past legal fees.
• Joseph Fowler resolved a case involving a passenger who tripped and fell on an airport jet bridge leased by our airline client.. After the close of discovery, we were successful in seeking dismissal with the consent of the parties, prior to any mediation or trial.
• Joseph Fowler and Matt Vodzak.  An airline passenger claimed that he slipped and fell on accumulated water in a Club Lounge restroom. We successfully tendered the case to the sub-contractor who handled the maintenance of the facility.
• Joseph F. McNulty resolved a case after Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff’s Complaint were filed based on the lack of exceptions to the Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff’s counsel expressed his intent to file an Amended Complaint raising the real estate exception. In response, FHMS noted that the filing would be frivolous and provided appropriate notice that a motion for sanctions would be filed if the amended complaint named the Borough as a defendant. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel withdrew his claim against the Borough by filing an amended complaint without naming the borough.
• Gregory H. Hirtzel  resolved a case of stipulated negligence. Plaintiff alleged injuries to her neck, back, right arm, and shoulder, as well as significant injuries to her ankles, which required 3 surgeries. Plaintiff additionally testified to pain on every day since the accident. Video revealed Plaintiff doing activities that the treating physician said she could not perform. The case was settled during binding arbitration and after plaintiff’s cross-examination for a number favorable to our client.
• Andrew J. Spaulding  resolved a case involving a slip and fall on broken concrete. FHMS received the case with a month left in discovery. After deposing the plaintiff, and before an IME or depositions of our corporate designees took place, the case was settled for a fraction of previous evaluations.
• Joseph  Fowler  took on a case where Plaintiff was killed when the car she was riding in went off the road at a high rate of speed, striking the client’s parked trailer. The trailer was parked approximately 17 feet from the edge of the roadway. The accident occurred when Pennsylvania law was still controlled by the Joint and Several Liability Act. The host tortfeasor, who was traveling 62 in a 25 mph zone, had clear liability. Plaintiff’s two experts opined that the accident would not have happened if the area had been better illuminated, if defendants had a clear zone on the side of the roadway that allowed vehicles to regain control, and if the trailers were not lined up to form an “underride wall.” They also opined that the area on which the trailers were situated was poorly maintained due to depressions, bumps, and railroad ties, which effected the driver’s ability to regain control. After an extensive Frye hearing,  the Court found that neither expert, both of whom had testified in court hundreds of times, had utilized appropriate scientific methodology. All of the opinions with regard to negligence offered by the two experts were precluded as not supported by methodology generally accepted in the expert’s scientific community. Summary judgment was then granted on behalf of all defendants.
• Gregory S. Hirtzel resolved a case involving claims by a family of four, alleging permanent physical and emotional injuries, as well as permanent scarring, after each was attacked by client’s Husky. The mother and son Plaintiffs had been bitten in the head, face, and neck during the attack. The case was settled before the client’s Answer was filed at a meeting with Plaintiffs and their counsel. The dog had allegedly been involved in two prior incidents, and was euthanized after this incident.
• Gregory S. Hirtzel facilitated pre-discovery settlement at mediation involving rear end collision by client’s CDL driver where the Plaintiff truck driver had multiple pre existing issues. A defense medical exam and radiologic review prior to mediation played a key role in early resolution. The 42 year old Plaintiff’s liens exceeded $145,000 arising from cervical discetomy and fusion after the incident, and the matter was resolved for $225,000.
• Joseph Fowler secured a defense verdict  in the case of Hetrick v. American Infrastructure following a two week trial in Chester County, Pennsylvania in favor of a construction company and driver. Demand from plaintiff’s counsel during the pretrial phase of the case was $12,000,000. Plaintiff suffered massive head injuries when defendants truck struck a telephone line which crossed the street. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that defendant saw the line pre-impact, and should have stopped after hearing the line come in contact with the truck. Jury returned a verdict in one hour. Defendant presented both construction and accident reconstruction experts.
• Joseph Fowler secured a defense verdict following a two week trial. Defendant commercial vehicle driver rear ended plaintiff’s vehicle when defendant yawned and took his eyes away from the roadway. Post-accident, Plaintiff unsuccessfully underwent spinal cord surgery, which resulted in massive neurologic limitations. Plaintiff’s experts identified significant wage loss future medical expenses. Plaintiff demanded $3,000,000 at trial. The jury returned a verdict for defendant finding that defendant was not negligent. The Superior Court sustained the lower court’s decision to uphold the jury’s verdict.
• Joseph F. McNulty was retained on the day of the accident to lead the investigation into a pedestrian fatality in Northampton County. Obtained expert review, located witnesses and scheduled and completed a successful mediation with Plaintiff counsel representing the surviving widow who had witnessed the accident within two months of the day of the accident.
• Andrew J. Spaulding represented the manufacturer of a racking system in a warehouse. The racking system collapsed, pinning the 47 year old plaintiff by the ankle in his forklift. Plaintiff required an ankle fusion and 12 follow-up surgeries. After joining the designer of the system and the maintenance company, we moved to mediation where a favorable settlement was reached.
• Andrew J. Spaulding settled a case for a favorable number after a fatal accident involving a commercial motor carrier. Early investigation showed significant problems with the case, including that the driver was over his hours of service and had inconsistencies on his medical card. In light of the unfavorable liability picture, we moved to mediation before discovery and resolved the matter.
• Andrew J. Spaulding represented the interests of a motor carrier in a fatal accident on a major highway. We interviewed our driver at the scene, reconstructed the accident, learned about plaintiff’s background and moved the case to a favorable resolution.