Pa. Court Consolidates State's COVID-Related Business Interruption Litigation
On Thursday morning, Allegheny County Administrative Judge Christine Ward agreed to consolidate into the Pittsburgh-based court several lawsuits that have been filed across the state against Erie Insurance Exchange over its business interruption coverage.
July 23, 2020 at 01:04 PM
3 minute read
The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas is set to handle the initial round of litigation over whether insurance carriers must provide coverage to companies that suffered an interruption of their business as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Thursday morning, Allegheny County Administrative Judge Christine Ward agreed to consolidate into the Pittsburgh-based court several lawsuits that have been filed across the state against Erie Insurance Exchange over its business interruption coverage. The four-page order said the cases will be consolidated for all pretrial and trial matters, as well as a final resolution.
The order specifically addresses three lawsuits that have been filed in recent months—one in Allegheny County, one in Philadelphia, and another in Lancaster County—but Ward's order also said Erie Insurance shall notify the court of any similar action so they can be transferred to the Allegheny County court and consolidated.
Schmidt Kramer attorney Scott Cooper, who, along with attorneys from Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith, Goodrich & Associates, and Kohn Swift & Graf, is leading the plaintiffs' efforts, said the ruling is important because it will help expedite a decision in the matter.
"We are pleased with the court's decision to coordinate these cases in one court since this will result in efficiencies for all of the litigants and the court. Also, there is not any risk of inconsistent decisions when the courts interpret this policy," Cooper said in an emailed statement. "We look forward to moving forward with our client's case as quickly as possible to obtain the insurance coverage under their policies that they, and all businesses, paid for and need."
The first case to be filed over the business interruption dispute in Pennsylvania was Tambellini v. Erie Insurance Exchange, which was filed in Allegheny County, and is one of the three suits named in Thursday's consolidation order.
Plaintiffs raising the coverage claims have been seeking a swift resolution on the business interruption issue since Tambellini was filed in late March. By April the plaintiffs had filed a petition seeking to have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court resolve the matter using its King's Bench jurisdiction, but the justices rejected those efforts the following month.
Plaintiff Joseph Tambellini's case hinges on the single question of whether Erie Insurance must provide coverage for the business disruption he's faced after his restaurant was closed as part of Gov. Tom Wolf's order shutting down businesses across the state. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment, and specifically argues that Tambellini's policy is an "all risk" policy, which provides coverage for all losses unless specifically excluded. Since the policy does not include a virus-related exclusion, the coverage must be available, he contended.
According to Tambellini's King's Bench petition, a ruling on the issue could provide guidance to the "hundreds, if not thousands," of similar lawsuits that are expected to arise across the state over the business closures.
Erie's counsel, Tara Maczuzak of DiBella Geer McAllister Best, did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readThird Circuit Predicts Pa. High Court's Application of 'Gallagher' and 'Donovan' in 'Mid-Century Insurance v. Werley'
12 minute read$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250