Alternative Litigation Solutions

Philadelphia County Settlement at Mediation: $137,500.00:

This premises liability matter arose from a slip and fall incident which occurred on Defendant's sidewalk. Plaintiff, a very pleasant witness with no prior claims or medical history, asserted that as she walked on the sidewalk, Defendant's dogs startled her in such a way that she moved to the edge of the sidewalk and fell due to a dangerous change in elevation between the sidewalk and the adjacent grass. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff sustained a fractured wrist which required surgery and subsequent removal of surgical hardware. Although Defendant did not dispute Plaintiff sustained a fracture, which appeared well-healed, Defendant did dispute that the sidewalk was in any manner defective. Instead, Defendant - citing significant portions of her Deposition testimony - argued Plaintiff's inattentiveness caused her to fall. Similarly, Plaintiff cited various portions of Defendant's Deposition testimony wherein she conceded the change in elevation may have been something she should have corrected. Ultimately, the risk of trial for both Parties prompted a very reasonable, amicable settlement.

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY SETTLEMENT AT MEDIATION: $500,000.00:

This case could have provided for a really good law school exam question. Moreover, the quality of advocacy by the attorneys and claims representative was outstanding. It is such a pleasure to work with everyone in this case. Liability and damages were very much in issue as was Pennsylvania's "Fair Share Act" and the applicability or non-applicability of the case of "Spencer v. Johnson." The case arose from a three-vehicle motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff's theory was that as he merged from the right travel lane to the left travel lane he was involved with a collision with an unidentified vehicle which fled the scene, thereby causing Plaintiff to cross into the opposing lane of travel and be involved in a subsequent collision with another vehicle traveling in the opposite direction, against whom Plaintiff filed suit for negligence. The operator of that vehicle never saw an unidentified vehicle and only saw Plaintiff's vehicle suddenly appear in his lane of travel and there was nothing he could have done to avoid the collision; there was some evidence that driver may have been driving faster than was suitable for the conditions as it was raining at the time. Compounding the analysis, Plaintiff (who was claiming, in part, a traumatic brain injury) testified he had no memory of anything following the initial impact with the unidentified vehicle, including any observations of the other vehicle traveling in the opposite lane of travel. Thus, a major hurdle for Plaintiff to overcome was establishing negligence and causation against the driver of the vehicle traveling in the opposite direction and who claimed, in part, "Sudden Emergency." There were "hearsay" issues involved as well as the very real prospect that Plaintiff could have been found entirely at fault for causing the accident in the first instance when he merged from the right lane to the left lane and collided with the unidentified vehicle (again, Plaintiff's lack of memory arguably made it impossible for him to explain his actions in ascertaining it was safe to do so). Regarding damages, Plaintiff was claiming significant economic damages which Defendant disputed. Although Plaintiff clearly suffered some injury, Defendant had undertaken surveillance of the Plaintiff and had a multitude of evidence suggesting Plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding the traumatic brain injury claim, were not as significant as claimed. Ultimately, with significant risk on all Parties, the gallant efforts of everyone resulted in a fabulous, amicable settlement. It was truly a very fascinating set of facts.

Settlement at Mediation: $500,000.00:
I am pleased to report the settlement of a premises liability action brought against a gas station/convenience store. The case was brought by decedent's estate arguing general negligence in the death of a young man. Decedent entered the store, purchased a few items, and then exited the store. Unbeknownst to decedent, a car pulled into the lot out from which two men with assault-style rifles began shooting multiple rounds at decedent in what was alleged to be a "targeted shooting." Decedent fled but was later found and executed. The defense argued, in part, that Pennsylvania Law imposed no "duty" on Defendants and that even if there were a "legal duty," the "cause" of decedent's death had nothing to do with any alleged breach of that duty as this was a targeted shooting and that this tragic incident would have occurred regardless. After a full day at Mediation, followed by several days of back-and-forth, I was able to procure an amicable settlement which avoiding Plaintiff risking the case being dismissed on "Summary Judgment" and the Defendants risking a large verdict in the event the case proceeded to trial.

COMBINED $80,000.00 POLICY LIMITS ALLOCATED:
I recently had the pleasure of working with several wonderful Plaintiffs, all of whom had been seriously injured in a rather severe motor vehicle accident. Two (2) separate policies of insurance had been tendered which totaled $80,000.00. In addition, there were other sources of potential recovery in the form of underinsured motorist coverage. As counsel was confronted with a "conflict of interest" insofar as him proposing an allocation, I was tasked with allocating the funds in such a manner as to maximize each Plaintiff's recovery in a fair manner given the injuries while also preserving the claims for underinsured motorist coverage. After reviewing the voluminous medical records and meeting with each Plaintiff, we were able to fairly and efficiently allocate the funds. It certainly helped that all of the Plaintiffs were wonderful people; I am thrilled they were not injured more severely injured in this very violent accident.

Philadelphia Employment Discrimination/Hostile Work Environment Settlement at Mediation: $300,000.00:

I am pleased to report a fabulous settlement at Mediation. The case involved claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliatory firing. Plaintiff, a young Jewish individual worked with another person who was purportedly a white supremacist who refused to cover up various tattoos, including a sw****ka, notwithstanding the employer had a written policy that such displays must be covered. Plaintiff also alleged the coworker would perform a N**i salute and would say "Heil Hi**er." Plaintiff claimed discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliatory firing following various complaints that were made relative to that individual. Defendant contested Plaintiff's claims, noting that Plaintiff had various documented work-performance warnings and write-ups, some of which pre-dated the hiring of the alleged white supremacist. With an uncapped binding arbitration with a former judge imminent, several hours of negotiations ultimately resulted in an amicable settlement being procured.