Will Sylianteng

December 16, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

A few weeks ago, I was having coffee with a friend who is a highly regarded insurance defense attorney in Center City Philadelphia. We were discussing several topics, when the topic of Tesla's Model 3 and its autonomous capabilities came up. In true lawyer fashion, instead of focusing on the features and the functionality, the question of—what happens to all of the trial lawyers (plaintiffs and defense) when autonomous cars become the norm?—became the served-up topic du jour.

By Will Sylianteng

15 minute read

June 09, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

It has been long accepted that uninjured family members may, under certain circumstances, recover tort damages based upon injuries suffered by a loved one. Two recent court cases have again spotlighted the viability of a recovery in tort by an uninjured relative.

By Will Sylianteng

6 minute read

January 26, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Over the past year, products liability litigators have, for good reason, focused their attention on the game-changing products liability case, Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa.2014).

By Will Sylianteng

6 minute read

October 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Representing two clients at once, insurance defense attorneys walk a very fine line. Called the "tripartite relationship," an insurance defense attorney is called upon to represent an insurance company's insured for the mutual benefit of the insurer and the insured. As with most cases, when the goals of the two "clients" are aligned, the relationship works seamlessly and efficiently. The insured gets a defense and the insurance company gets to control said defense, including the right to settle or not to settle a claim.

By Will Sylianteng

6 minute read

June 09, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In One Beacon America Insurance v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, No. 2012-cv-4490 (April 13, 2015, Lackawanna CCP), the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas held that the plaintiff insurance company's inadvertent disclosure of an intra-office memorandum, referred to as a case conference sheet, was not privileged and therefore did not open the door to a subject-matter waiver of attorney-client privilege, despite the fact that it revealed sensitive communications from the plaintiff's attorney.

By Will Sylianteng

6 minute read

June 08, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In

By Will Sylianteng

6 minute read

April 07, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Have you ever left a deposition and felt like you nailed it? Not because you asked every possible question (we all know that never happens, as there is always that one question everyone remembers only after adjournment), but because the look on the deponent's face after your thorough inquisition was priceless. You wished you had a video of it, right? But you don't. Why?

By Will Sylianteng

8 minute read

April 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Have you ever left a deposition and felt like you nailed it? Not because you asked every possible question (we all know that never happens, as there is always that one question everyone remembers only after adjournment), but because the look on the deponent's face after your thorough inquisition was priceless. You wished you had a video of it, right? But you don't. Why?

By Will Sylianteng

8 minute read

February 17, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

It has been less than one year since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court codified, via amendment of the civil practice rules, its holding in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 91 A.3d 680 (Pa.2014). In Barrick, an evenly divided court affirmed a ruling issued by an en banc panel of the Superior Court, and held that all communications between an attorney and his testifying expert were shielded from discovery by the attorney work-product doctrine.

By Will Sylianteng

7 minute read

February 17, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

It has been less than one year since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court codified, via amendment of the civil practice rules, its holding in, 91 A.3d 680 (Pa.2014). In an evenly divided court affirmed a ruling issued by an en banc panel of the Superior Court, and held that all communications between an attorney and his testifying expert were shielded from discovery by the attorney work-product doctrine.

By Will Sylianteng

7 minute read