Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP -- Attorneys At Law

Recent Accomplishments
About Us:
News
Recent Accomplishments
Upcoming Events
Community Involvement

Partner, Jason Garber, successfully argued Motion for Summary Judgment

Partner Jason S. Garber successfully obtained dismissal of all claims against a client-subcontractor in a complex construction defect case.  The case was filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Maryland.  Mr. Garber filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the statute of repose barred all claims against the subcontractor. The Court agreed and therefore, dismissed all claims against the subcontractor and entered judgment in favor of the client.

Partner, Lou Rizzo, Esquire, successfully defends Builder in Delaware Construction Case

Partner, Lou Rizzo, Esquire, completed a jury trial in January involving a complex construction litigation matter. Lou successully defended a regional residential builder/developer in connection with claims that included construction defects and construction site injuries. Following trial in Superior Court in Delaware, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Lou's builder client and rejecting all claims of the plaintiff. The client's position at trial was significantly strengthened by pre-trial rulings on dispositive and evidentiary issues ranging from expert qualifications and methodology under the Daubert standard to insurance coverage.

Partner, Jason S. Garber, Esquire successfully defends a Pennsylvania trucking company in Workers Compensation claim

Partner, Jason S. Garber, Esquire successfully defended a Pennsylvania trucking company in front of the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission, resulting in no award to Claimant. Claimant suffered a work-related injury in New Jersey and again in Maryland when he returned to work several months later. Claimant filed workers compensation claims in Maryland and Pennsylvania, claiming he was entitled to benefits in both states on both claims. Whiel navigating complex jurisdictional and benefits issues, Mr. Garber was able to secure a decision from the Commission that resulted in no award to Claimant, thus, saving the employer from the substantial award sought by Claimant for both incidents.

Partner, Jason Garber, argued Motion for Summary Judgment

Partner, Jason S. Garber, Esquire, successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a national retail clothing store. The lawsuit was originally filed in state court in Maryland, but was removed to Federal Court.  Plaintiff had alleged that as a result of a particular incident at the store, she was defamed, placed in a false light, falsely imprisoned, intentionally defrauded, and had emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon her by a store employee.

The claims of false light were dismissed as Plaintiff failed to show that any of the alleged statements were uttered to the public at large. Similarly, Plaintiff had no evidence to sustain her claims of intentional fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mr. Garber also successfully argued that one of the Plaintiff's defamation claims was subject to dismissal as the alleged statements were reasonable and justified. Ultimately, the Court concluded that only two of Plaintiff's claims could survive summary judgment, one in which Plaintiff had no actual damages, and the false imprisonment count by "the thinnest of margins." As such, five of Plaintiff's seven claims were dismissed pursuant to summary judgment. The Court will consider a supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining two counts following the conclusion of the reopened discovery period.

Partner, Lou Rizzo, argued Motion for Summary Judgment

Partner Lou Rizzo argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a subcontractor in a construction site accident case.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of Delaware.  The injured worker filed suit against the Plaintiff's employer on the grounds of negligence and breach of contract.

The claims of negligence were quickly dismissed because any claims of negligence against the employer of the Plaintiff were barred under the exclusivity provisions of the Delaware Works Compensation law.  Rizzo successfully argued that the indemnification clause in the subcontract agreement was void under Delaware's subcontractor indemnification statute.  In a Memorandum Opinion delivered by the Delaware District Court, the Court confirmed that Delaware law should apply, in spite of the choice of law provision in the contract calling for the application of Pennsylvania law.

The Court went on to hold that the indemnification provision in the subcontract agreement was void under Delaware law.  The Court concluded that the clause violated the statute, and could not be severed to bring the indemnification language into compliance with the statute.  Because the indemnification provision was void, the remaining contractual claims against the subcontractor were dismissed.

Partner Wins Complete Defense Verdict after two week Trial

Partner, Steve Leventhal, Esquire recently won a complete defense verdict for a products liability franchisee client after a two week trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

On October 17, 2008, after deliberating for less than an hour following a two week trial, a Philadelphia jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Leventhal's client.  "The jury simply found that our client was not negligent and stopped deliberating!"

The case turned out to be an unsuccessful attempt to expand the legal duty owed by an independent contractor to a handicapped tenant for repairs made to the tenant's apartment which later allegedly proved not to be handicapped-friendly given the unique nature of the Plaintiff's pre-existing disability.  As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff, a 20-year victim of mulitple sclerosis and five prior heart attacks, ripped full tears in both ACL joints in his knees, which allegedly made him totally dependent on others for any future attempt at transferring or assisted walking.

"The law was quite clear," Leventhal exclaimed.  "Without a prior special or direct contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the contractor, at best, the Plaintiff was nothing more than a third party beneficiary for whom no such duty was recognized.  We were left with a 'warranty for a particular purpose' claim when there was no proof that the contractor was consulted about the true nature of the tenant's handicap prior to their invitation to the job site."

The case was tried before the Honorable Sheldon C. Jelin, a senior trial judge for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Partner, Lou Rizzo, Esquire successfully argued Motion for Summary Judgment

Lou Rizzo, Esquire argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a subcontractor in a construction site accident case.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of Delaware.  The injured worker filed suit against the general contractor, who in turn filed a Third Party Complaint against he Plaintiff's employer on the grounds of negligence and breach of contract.  The claims of negligence were quickly dismissed because any claims of claims of negligence against the employer of the Plaintiff were barred under the exclusivity provisions of the Delaware Workers Compensation law.

Rizzo successfully argued that the indemnification clause in the subcontract agreement was void under Delaware's subcontractor indemnification statute.  In a Memorandum Opinion delivered by the Delaware District Court, the Court confirmed that Delaware law should apply, in spite of the choice of law provision in the contract calling for the application of Pennsylvania law.  The Court went on to hold that the indemnification provision in the subcontract was void under Delaware law.  The Court concluded that the clause violated the statute, and could not be severed to bring the indemnification language into compliance with the statute.  Because the indemnification provision was void, the remaining contractual claims against the subcontractor were dismissed.

Partners Conclude Theft of Trade Secrets Trial

Partners, Lou Rizzo, Jason Garber and Tom Schindler recently concluded a complex civil trial in United States District Court for the District of Delaware involving claims under the federal Theft of Trade Secrets Act.  The trial was the successful culmination of a complex litigation involving claims against competitor companies and a former employee, which also involved antitrust claims.

Summary Judgment Affirmed by Delaware Supreme Court

Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire, Partner in the Delaware office, recently obtained an opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court after oral argument, affirming a Superior Court ruling dismissing a tort claim based on the unforeseeability of the Plaintiff's intervening negligence. Sims v. Stanley, Delaware Supreme Court No. 361, 2007, April 1, 2008.

Partner, Robert J. Reger, Esquire secures Affirmation of Jury Verdict and Judgment by Supreme Court on Behalf of the Phillies

In the matter of CCH v. The Phillies, et al., (click here for description of case below) Plaintiffs appealed the decision of the Honorable Paul Panepinto of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas denying Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motion. In affirming the Trial Court's decision, on August 30, 2006, The Pennsylvania Superior Court issued its opinion, rejecting all eight of Plaintiffs' claimed Trial Court errors. The Superior Court observed that the Jury in the near month long trial clearly believed The Phillies' contention that there was neither a rape nor a battery upon the Plaintiff, and that The Phillies were in no way negligent. In its decision dated February 19, 2008, The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Superior Court, concluding that The Phillies were not negligent. For the full Opinion, click here for the Opinion, and here for the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.

Partner secures Summary Judgment in favor of No-fault Carrier Affirmed by Delaware Supreme Court

Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire, Partner in the Delaware office, recently obtained an opinion from the Delaware Supreme Court after an en banc oral argument.  The Court affirmed Superior Court ruling dismissing a pedestrian Plaintiff's suit in which Plaintiff sought to expand the ability of a pedestrian to obtain no-fault coverage beyond the coverage availabe from the striking vehicle.  Gray v. Allstate, Delaware Supreme Court # 247, 2007, December 17, 2007.

Partner Presented with State Leadership Award

Partner, Lou Rizzo, was presented with the State Leadership Award at the DRI Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. on October 11, 2007. Lou has just completed his third year as DRI's State Representative for Delaware.

Partner Sworn in as a Member of the Montgomery County Youth Aid Panel

Partner, Shannon P. Mickle, an associate in our Philadelphia office was sworn in as a member of the Montgomery County Youth Aid Panel by Montgomery County District Attorney, Bruce Castor, on May 24, 2007. Click here for photo.

Defendants' Motion for Non-Suit Granted in Claim of Fraud Against Realtor

Partner, Adam M. Smith, represented the Defendants real estate broker and agent in a claim of fraud in the case of Williams v. Prudential Fox & Roach, LP, et al., Chester County No. 05-04773. Plaintiffs brought suit against the real estate broker and agent which listed for sale residential property claiming a failure to disclose modifications to the utility pole located in the rear of the home, and claiming in excess of $1 million dollars in damages. Defendants argued that all known material defects were disclosed prior to the time of settlement, and once the Plaintiffs rested their case after three days of Trial, the Honorable Jacqueline Cody granted Defendants' Motion for Non-Suit.

Partner, Bradley J. Vance, Esquire obtains Directed Verdict in Contract/Bad Faith Action

Bradley J. Vance obtained a directed verdict in favor of his client in a Philadelphia breach of contract and bad faith trial, June Naimon v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Phila. CCP August Term, 2005 No. 00133. The case involved a claim for extensive damage to an in-ground pool. The Plaintiff sought both compensatory damages, and Bad Faith damages from the insurer-defendant, including punitive damages, interest, costs and counsel fees. The case was tried to a jury in Philadelphia County, with the Honorable Ricardo Jackson presiding. Following the presentation and close of the Defendant Insurance carrier's case, the Defendant moved for Directed Verdict. After lengthy argument on the issue, the trial judge determined that a judgment in favor of the Defendant as a matter of law was indicated. Judge Jackson entered a Directed Verdict in favor of the Defendant, taking the case from the jury.

Client Dismissed from Multi-Million Dollar Case on Pre-Trial Motion

Partner, Bradley J. Vance, successfully defended his client in a products liability trial in the matter of Leroy Rice v. 2701 Red Lion Road Associates, LP, et al., Philadelphia CCP 030402328. RRK&D's client, Stokes Equipment Company, was dismissed on pretrial motions after an offer of proof was made to the trial judge. The jury returned a verdict against a remaining defendant in excess of $10 Million.

Motion for Summary Judgment Victory in Wrongful Discharge/Unjust Enrichment Claim

Partner, Robert J. Foster, in Carrie Bailey v. Khepera Charter School was granted a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client, Khepera Charter School. (Philadelphia CCP July 2005 No. 02715).

Carrie Bailey was the founder and CEO of the Khepera Charter School. Following an incident where she was accused of using excessive force when disciplining a child, the Board of Trustees decided to terminate her contract. Unfortunately, the Board notified Carrie Bailey of its decision prior to the official meeting where they acted on the Motion to terminate the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a four count complaint alleging wrongful termination, unjust enrichment, reimbursement of unpaid expenses and compensation for items left behind at the school.

A Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was filed on the basis that the Plaintiff's employment contract specified that she was an at will employee and could be fired at any time for any reason with or without cause. The Motion also included the argument that the remedies provided by the Sunshine Act are the exclusive remedies for one who claims they were impacted by a decision made in violation of the Act.

The Court granted the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dismissing the claims for unjust enrichment and wrongful termination with prejudice. The case has since been settled by the parties.

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Insurance Coverage Dispute

Partner, Robert J. Foster secured a Motion for Summary Judgment victory in the matter of Zaza and Yalena Abutidze v. Harold Fisher & Sons, Inc and Enterprise Rubber, Inc. v. Alert Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States Liability Insurance Group, Continental Casualty Company (CNA), Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company and Republic Western Insurance Company. EDPA 04-1578

Summary Judgment granted in favor of Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company. Declaratory judgment action seeking to compel the carriers to defend and indemnify Alert Motor Freight in the underlying action is dismissed with prejudice.

Zaza Abutidze, a truck driver, was seriously injured when one of the bungee cords tying down the load on his truck broke free and struck him in the eye. Suit was filed against the tarp and bungee cord manufactures. During discovery, the Defendants learned that Zaza Abutidze's workers compensation benefits were paid by Omni Financial Services, an employee leasing company, not Alert Motor Freight. Alert Motor Freight was then joined as an additional Defendant.

Alert Motor Freight then joined CNA, Omni Financial Services New Jersey Worker's Compensation Carrier and Travelers, the company assigned to administer benefits under New Jersey's Assigned Risk Plan seeking coverage under Section II of the Worker's Compensation policy for claims brought by an employee. Alert Motor Freight, though, was not identified on the policy as an additional insured. Alert Motor Freight argued that as a co-employer of the Plaintiff, New Jersey Law would grant them co-insured status.

Omni Financial Services' successor, the CURA Group, also produced a separate worker's compensation binder which indicated that CNA had issued a separate policy to Alert Motor Freight. Discovery revealed that this binder was not genuine. Alert voluntarily withdrew its claims based upon the binder provided by the CURA Group.

Judge Curtis Joyner granted CNA and Travelers' Motion for Summary Judgment finding that under New Jersey Law, neither CNA nor Travelers had a duty to defend or indemnify Alert despite having issued a workers compensation policy to Omni Financial Services.

Defense Verdict in Blasting Case

Partner, Bradley J. Vance, recently secured a defense verdict in a first party property damage and coverage matter litigated before Judge Abraham Gafni. Following a one-day trial including testimony from the homeowners, two structural engineers, and the Defendant Insurance company's expert geologist/seismologist, the Judge ruled that damages claimed by the Plaintiff homeowners was unrelated to nearby blasting operations, but rather resulted from deficient or improper construction, a loss excluded under the applicable policy of insurance. If you would like more information concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Bradley J. Vance at 215.495.6503 or by email at bvance@rrkdlaw.com.

Partner, Robert J. Reger, Esquire Named to the Million Dollar Advocates Forum

The Million Dollar Advocates Forum is recognized as the most prestigious group of trial lawyers in the United States. Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million dollar verdicts, awards and settlements. Forum membership acknowledges excellence in advocacy, and provides members with a national network of experienced colleagues for professional referral and information exchange in major cases. For more information, please see The Million Dollar Advocates Forum website at www.milliondollaradvocates.com.

Partner, Bradley J. Vance, Esquire, recently successfully argued a Summary Judgment Motion in Warren County Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. Mr. Vance secured a Summary Judgment for his client in which the Court declared that Uninsured Motorist benefits were not owed under the applicable insurance policy because the snowmobile being operated by the stated tortfeasor.

Jason S. Garber, Esquire recently successfully defended the owner of a restaurant/bar in a non-jury criminal trial in Philadelphia County. The Defendant had been charged with multiple felony counts of aggravated assault and conspiracy, as well as false imprisonment, unlawful restraint, simple assault, reckless endangerment of another person, and other misdemeanor charges, as a result of a fight that occurred within the Defendant's restaurant. It had been alleged by the District Attorney's Office that the Defendant directly participated in the fight, and conspired with and assisted others involved in the fight. After a two-day non-jury trial, the Judge concluded that Defendant was not guilty on all counts.

Manufacturing and Design Defects of Furnace to Blame for Worker's Death

Partner, Thomas J. Wehner is currently representing the Plaintiff in a case involving the wrongful death of her husband who died on the job at a plant in 2002. The suit was filed on the widow's behalf against the defendant manufacturer of an industrial furnace and is based upon the unreasonably dangerous conditions caused by the alleged defective design and manufacture of the furnace. Plaintiff's husband was doing maintenance work in the plant when the fatal accident occurred. Defendants claim the death occurred by natural causes and not by electrocution. This suit is ongoing.

Lester, Patrick. "Woman Sues over Death at U.S. Gauge". The Intelligencer 21 July 2004. http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-07212004-334711.html

Defendants Held Accountable for Telephone Charges

Partner, Jason J. Sweet represented Plaintiffs in Line Systems, Inc. v. Eurosystems, a claim sounding in breach of contract and unjust enrichment based upon providing local, long distance and international telephone service to Defendants resulted in a plaintiff's verdict despite the defendant's erroneous claims that a hacker had accessed defendant's telephone system and accrued service charges. Defendant's subsequent appeals to the Superior Court and Supreme Court were denied and the verdict affirmed.

Estate Wrongfully Withheld Non-Custodial Parent's Share of Insurance Proceeds

Partner, Jason J. Sweet successfully represented the father of sixteen year old who was killed in a motor vehicle accident. The daughter's estate wrongfully withheld the father's share of the driver's insurance proceeds.

Wrongful Death Directed Verdict secured by firm partner

Partner, Steven G. Leventhal successfully had his industrial client removed from the verdict sheet after a two week long wrongful death trial the day before the matter was ultimately submitted to a Chester County Pennsylvania jury for determination. The decedent's recovery was ultimately limited to a statutory worker's compensation recovery.

"Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis", Volume 22, Issue 9, pgs. 8-9, August 2004.

Defense Verdict in Alleged Rape Case at Veterans' Stadium

Partner, Robert J. Reger successfully defended The Phillies in CCH v. The Phillies, et al. In CCH, a minor Plaintiff claimed that she was brutally gang raped at Veteran's Stadium following a Phillies game. The accused were three teenage employees of a concession of the City of Philadelphia at Veterans' Stadium. Plaintiff brought a civil action against The Phillies and the three teenagers for her claimed injuries of Post Traumatic Stress and other psychological difficulties. The Plaintiff alleged she sought assistance from two Phillies' security guards after she became lost following the game to no avail. Plaintiff's demand was 12.5 million dollars prior to trial. After one half day of deliberations, the Jury rendered a verdict for the defense. Theyconcluded that The Phillies were not negligent and that no rape or battery was committed by the accused teenagers.

Defense Verdict in Realtor's Negligence Claim

Partner, Jason J. Sweet represented the defendant real estate broker in a realtor's negligence claim, Green and Driscol v. Fox and Roach, LP, Philadelphia County Case No. 03-02-209. Plaintiffs were potential buyers of a residential property in the Society Hill section of Philadelphia who brought suit against the real estate agency which handled the sale. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendant negligently failed to timely present their offer to the sellers, allowing the property to be sold to a rival bidder for less. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant had breached its fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and sought compensatory damages for $1 million dollars in lost profits, attorneys fees and punitive damages. Defendant maintained that it had in fact presented the plaintiffs' offer to the seller's attorney and that the seller's attorney made a decision to accept the rival bid which contained better terms for the seller than the Plaintiffs' higher offer. Following a two week trial, a unanimous verdict for the Defendant was returned by a Philadelphia jury on all counts.

"Pennsylvania Jury Verdict Review & Analysis", Volume 22, Issue 9, P. 9, August 2004

Plaintiff Denied Class Action Certification in Federal & State based Wiretap Case

Partner, Steven G. Leventhal recently defeated class certification brought on the behalf of an aggrieved group of 1500+ school students who claimed that both their audio and visual images were illegally captured via the school districts' security bus camera system as an alleged violation of both their state & federal Wiretap statute privacy rights.

Plaintiff Denied $300,000 Attorneys' Fee Claim

Partner, Jason J. Sweet in Reilly, et al. v. Travelers et al, Phila. CCP, Oct. 2002 No. 003744, successfully defended a $300,000 attorney fee dispute brought against an insurance company/third party administrator institutional client. Plaintiffs claimed that after they secured a $9 million dollar verdict for their client in a personal injury action, that the Plaintiffs were also due an additional $300,000 in attorneys fees related to the recovery of the workers compensation lien. After a one day trial, Defendants received a verdict in their favor.

Plaintiff Denied Recovery for Foul Ball Claim, Despite Innovative "Distraction" Claim

Partner, Robert J. Foster successfully represented Defendants in Kohri v. The Phillies, a claim brought by an unfortunate fan who was struck by a foul ball while attending a ball game. Plaintiff claimed he was distracted at the time by the antics of the Phillies' Phanatic which caused him to divert his attention away from the field of play. The case was dismissed via Motion for Summary Judgment. An appeal is currently pending.

Waiver of Home Inspection Results in Contractual Win

Partner, Robert J. Foster, in Rementer v. Mullin, defended a real estate agent for allegedly failing to disclose a known defect in a house. The real estate agent, who was the daughter of the seller had knowledge imputed to her by the Court. The defect was a sagging roof which was supported by a poorly installed knee wall built by the real estate agent's brothers. The case however was dismissed on Motion for Summary Judgment because the buyer declined a home inspection. The court enforced the parole evidence rule pursuant to an integration clause contained in the agreement of sale.
© 2007 Reger Rizzo & Darnall LLP | All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us