Legal Advice Blog: Legal Advice, Case Insights, & Local Law Information

We live in a world where information is readily available to us almost all of the time. We are able to instantly answer any question that we have by pulling out our phone, and can extensively research any topic, big or small. This is a great resource when you need a quick answer – for example, if you are driving in an unfamiliar location and need to find a gas station, or when you are at the store and can’t remember the last couple of ingredients in a recipe. But having this type of information available can actually sometimes cause us to cut ourselves short because we focus on getting the answers that we think that we want instead of finding out what all of our options may be. Nowadays, people tend to plan ahead on everything that they do. If they are shopping for something new, they will do online searches for the type of products they want. They will read dozens of reviews, good and bad, about the products, and look at photographs to compare colors and styles. They will see what kind of prices they can get from different websites or stores, then typically either order that product directly from a website or go straight into the store knowing exactly what they want, making it a quick trip to purchase that item and get back on their way. The same is often true for restaurants or vacation destinations. Research into the place’s Facebook, Yelp, Google, or TripAdvisor pages will be done, the menu will have been scanned in advance, and sometimes a virtual tour of hotel rooms or the location is even an option. While all of this can help save time and help make an informed decision, it might cause you to miss out. Many stores, salons, restaurants, and vacation destinations employ individuals who are experienced, informed and passionate about their line of work. These places generally want to put their best foot forward to customers, and make sure you have a good experience. You might think that you are ordering the best item on the menu based on your own review – but if you ask a waiter or bartender, they might give you information that could be relevant to your decision, such as the portion size or an option of combining certain foods that you didn’t even realize that you had. They might suggest a great drink to go with your meal. You may be turned on to a local destination on your vacation that most tourists would not know to visit. Many salons and beauty product stores are happy to provide samples or let you test the products in the store and can offer guidance about which products you might like best based on your questions or information you give a salesperson or stylist about yourself. Employees at bike shops or other sporting gear stores often enjoy the very types of activities for which they are selling products and can give personal feedback. From talking to employees at the store, you may also learn of sales or deals available to regular customers or at special events, or that are not publicly advertised. While it can be helpful to use your phone to do your own research into shopping, dining or making other purchases, sometimes it's worth a try to do it the old-fashioned way and ask for advice in person! You never know what you might learn or find.

Recently, in Marshall v. Brown’s IA, LLC (“ShopRite”), the Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated judgment as a result of the trial court’s failure to provide the jury with an adverse inference jury instruction. While shopping at ShopRite, Ms. Marshall slipped on water and fell, aggravating a pre-existing injury to her hip and back. ShopRite employees summoned medical assistance, and an incident report was prepared immediately thereafter. The incident report revealed that Ms. Marshall stated that she was getting a pepper in the produce department when she slipped and fell on water. Approximately two weeks later, ShopRite received a letter of representation from Ms. Marshall’s counsel requesting that ShopRite retain surveillance video of the accident and area in question for six hours prior to the accident and three hours after the accident. Additionally, the letter cautioned: If any of the above evidence exists, and you fail to maintain same until the disposition of this claim, it will be assumed that you have intentionally destroyed and/or disposed of evidence. Please be advised that you are not permitted, and are in no position, to decide what evidence plaintiff would like to review for this case. Accordingly, discarding any of the above evidence will lead to an Adverse Inference against you in this matter. While Ms. Marshall’s slip and fall was captured on the store’s video surveillance system, ShopRite decided to preserve only thirty-seven minutes of video prior to Ms. Marshall’s fall and approximately twenty minutes after, and permitted the remainder to be automatically overwritten after thirty days. Ms. Marshall filed a claim against ShopRite alleging that it was negligent in failing to keep its premises safe by failing to remove water on the floor that it knew or should have known was present and posed a risk to its customers. The case proceeded to a jury trial, and in his opening statement, counsel for ShopRite told the jury that it wasn’t possible to tell from the video if there was water on the floor, how it got there or when it got there. ShopRite’s Risk Manger testified that it was ShopRite’s “rule of thumb” to preserve video surveillance from twenty minutes before and twenty minutes after a fall, but offered no explanation why it deviated from its typical practice. It was his opinion that the video produced was sufficient to see the defective condition if it could be seen at all, and because the substance on the floor could not be seen on the retained portion of the video, he maintained it “would be a fool’s errand” to go back several hours as requested. He added that it was impractical and costly to retain the requested six hours of pre-incident videotape. ShopRite also offered evidence of its reasonable care in keeping the store premises safe for customers. Managers testified that employees were trained in the importance of preventing slip and falls, and described financial incentives for employees who located and cleaned up spills. The store also uses the Gleason system, an electronic monitoring system whereby an employee walks around the store every hour on a designated route that passes thirty-five buttons. As the employee inspects the floor in each area near the button, he or she uses an electronic wand to press the button indicating whether there was a wet spill, dry spill, or the area was clear. The system creates a log for each of the walk-throughs. Ms. Marshall fell almost fifty minutes after the last Gleason inspection. At trial, Ms. Marshall contended that ShopRite’s conscious decision not to retain the video evidence constituted spoliation, which entitled her to an adverse inference charge to the jury. Specifically, Pa.S.S.J.I. 5.60, relating to spoliation of evidence, provides: If a party disposes of a piece of evidence before the other party had an opportunity to inspect it, and the party who disposed of the evidence should have recognized the evidence was relevant to an issue in this lawsuit, then you may find that this evidence would have been unfavorable to them, unless they satisfactorily explain why they disposed of this evidence. ShopRite argued that because the video did not show water of the floor, the destroyed video would have no relevant evidence. Moreover, ShopRite claimed that by following its retention policy, it did not act in bad faith in deleting the additional video requested. The trial court determined that Ms. Marshall’s counsel’s request to preserve the video did not make it relevant. The court also concluded that ShopRite did not act in bad faith; and therefore, refused to give the requested adverse inference charge. However, the court permitted Ms. Marshall’s counsel to argue to the jury that it should infer from ShopRite’s decision not to retain more of the video prior to Ms. Marshall’s fall that the video was damaging to ShopRite. In his closing argument, counsel for Ms. Marshall told the jury that ShopRite intentionally decided to eliminate the requested portions of the video because it was harmful to them, and that the water was on the floor long enough that, with reasonable care, they should have seen and remedied it. ShopRite maintained that because one could not discern water on the floor in the existing video, it could not be reasonably expected to show water during any other portion of the video.  Ultimately, the jury found in favor of ShopRite, and Ms. Marshall’s appealed the decision claiming that the trial court erred in refusing to give the requested spoliation instruction to the jury. The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that where a party destroys or loses proof that is pertinent to a lawsuit, a court may impose a variety of sanctions, among them “entry of judgment against the offending party, exclusion of evidence, monetary penalties such as fines and attorney fees, and adverse inference instructions to the jury.” Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248, 1281 (Pa.Super. 2018). The Adverse Inference doctrine “attempts to compensate those whose legal rights are impaired by the destruction of evidence by creating an adverse Inference against the party responsible for the destruction.” Duquesne Light v. Woodland Hills Sch. Dist., 700 A.2d 1038, 1050 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997). The duty to retain evidence is established where a party “knows that litigation is pending or likely” and “it is foreseeable that discarding the evidence would be prejudicial” to the other party. Where spoliation has occurred, the trial court must weigh three factors in assessing the proper penalty: “(1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party and, where the offending party is seriously at fault, will serve to deter such conduct by others in the future.” Gavin v. Loeffelbein, 161 A.3d 340, 353-54 (Pa.Super. 2017). Ultimately, the Court determined that the missing video was relevant because it may have shown when the spill occurred, or whether other customers may have slipped, and/or it could have been probative as to whether ShopRite’s inspection and safety precautions were being followed. Moreover, the Court found that ShopRite intentionally, unilaterally and arbitrarily preserved thirty-seven minutes of footage prior to the fall without any explanation as to why it deviated from its usual practice, why thirty-seven minutes in particular were preserved, or who made that decision. In fact, ShopRite’s Risk Manger disavowed any knowledge of who made the decision to retain only a portion of the video. The Court further explained that the thirty-seven minutes prior to Ms. Marshall’s fall did not even include the fifty minutes that elapsed after the last Gleason inspection of the area. Furthermore, conspicuously absent was testimony from anyone at ShopRite that he or she watched the video for the six-hour-period prior to the fall before determining that it did not contain any relevant evidence. Finally, the Court held that the trial court’s finding that there was no spoliation because ShopRite did not act in bad faith was based on an incorrect application of the doctrine. The Court explained that spoliation may be negligent, reckless, or intentional; a party’s good or bad faith in the destruction of potentially relevant evidence goes to the type of sanction that should be imposed, not whether a sanction is warranted. Thus, the Court held that ShopRite’s conduct herein constituted spoliation, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial.

Unfortunately, stories like this are sure to abound as the years progress. A recent Bordas & Bordas, PLLC client was very pleased to find out that we were able to correct a royalty calculation mistake that was going to cost them almost $73,000! A West Virginia couple had recently been contacted by Equinor, formally known as StatOil, and were told that there had been an overpayment in their royalty account of over $80,000! Equinor advised the royalty owners that they would no longer receive royalty checks until that $80,000 payment was recouped. The couple called and emailed and attempted to get explanations for the situation but could seemingly get nowhere. The explanations they did get just didn’t seem to make sense to them. Worried about their rights they contacted Bordas & Bordas, PLLC and I was able to review their documents and reach out to the gas company. After some pointed communications asking for specific reasons why the alleged overpayment had occurred an in-house corporate attorney for Equinor finally wrote back. My questions had prompted a new investigation into the account. Unfortunately, the landowners’ questions alone did not seem to be enough. It was not until an attorney became involved that the gas company took the complaint serious. The gas company attorney explained after the company review that nearly the entire overpayment had been a mistake and the landowners did not owe over $80,000 in overpaid royalties. While there had been a mistake in the calculation of ownership percentages as the production unit changed in size, only about $7,000 in overpayments had occurred! While that is still a substantial amount of money, it is much less than the $80,000 originally claimed by the company. Rather than waiting years to receive their royalties and giving up about $73,000 in income, the family will soon again be receiving their royalty checks. This was possible because the couple questioned what the gas company told them and were willing to reach out to an attorney to have their situation reviewed. If your royalty checks don’t seem right, if the company tells you something that does not make sense please don’t hesitate to contact someone and see if it can be checked out. Whether through greed or neglect it appears that many landowners are being taken advantage of by the gas operators. Don’t let it happen to your family. Make the call and let us see if we can help you out.

Spring has officially arrived. For me, that means “spring cleaning” will take place in my home. As I gather products into my Grove account I will admit, I get pretty excited. It’s a time to wipe away remnants of cold and flu season and get rid of all unwanted items that have been stored for a day that will probably never come. I know there are others like me, who love the beginning of warm days, opening windows and airing out our homes. As a matter of fact, according to Offer Up’s survey of 2000 adults; 70% of Americans say tidying their home offers them a feeling of accomplishment, 61% say it makes them feel “destressed” and 54% say they experience a sense of “relaxation”. This doesn’t at all surprise me as there has also been a small study published in the journal Mindfulness that found participants who actually took a moment to inhale the scent of the soap and allowed the warm water absorb their skin – reported a 27% reduction in nervousness along with a 25% improvement in “mental inspiration”. Apparently, I am in the group of people who feel a sense of empowerment by getting rid of needless objects cluttering up my home. So I will just sit back patiently wait for my box of lavender cleaning products to hit my front porch.

As most of us know, we live in a world where people have become dependent on Uber or Lyft to get us from one place to another. However, the question then arises – what happens if I am in an accident while riding in an uber or lyft. Many people are unsure what to do if they are in an accident while placed in this type of situation. However, the preliminary steps as to what to do after an accident of this type are generally the same as if you were in an accident while in your own vehicle. The below is an overview of the various steps you may want to take if involved in an accident while a passenger in an uber or lyft: Make sure you and everyone else involved in the accident are ok; Call 911 so that an accident report may be completed and further, if there are serious injuries, so that emergency responders can quickly get to the scene of the accident; Take pictures of the accident and the vehicles involved, even if the vehicle does not belong to you; Obtain all of the relevant information of the individuals involved. Although the app you are using will likely give you general information about your driver – it is important to get their contact information and personal auto insurance information as well; Contact your insurance company to inform them of the accident if you are injured and to make a claim to determine what benefits, if any, are available to you. Most importantly, you want to determine whether you have medical payment coverages under your own policy. Medical payment coverage generally will pay for medical costs up to a certain amount after you are injured in a car accident regardless of who is found at fault for the accident; File a claim with the other driver’s insurance company if that party is at fault for the accident; File a claim with your Uber or Lyft driver’s personal auto insurance company to determine if any insurance coverage is available to you under this policy; File a claim with Uber or Lyft as your driver’s personal automobile insurance policy may not provide coverage for the accident. According to recent news articles, both Uber and Lyft carry $1,000,000.00 in both liability insurance coverage and in underinsured/uninsured coverage. In sum, the general steps you want to take if you are involved in an accident while a passenger in an uber or lyft are not terribly drastic from the steps you would take if you were involved in an accident while driving your own personal vehicle. Make sure to remain calm and to seek out an attorney if you have any questions or need help with representation when dealing with the various insurance companies involved.

The 26 th Annual Wheeling Health Right Chefs’ Auction is coming up on Friday, May 3. The event will take place at Wesbanco Arena, and will begin at 5:30pm with cocktails and a silent auction. At 7:00pm, dinner will be served, and at 8:00pm, the live auction will begin. The event features a variety of great food from the very best of Wheeling’s food and restaurant scene, and an auction with many exciting prizes. The proceeds of the event help benefit Wheeling Health Right, and this event is the organization’s major fundraiser each year. The them of this year’s Chef’s Auction is “Friday Night Fever.” Tickets can be purchased by going to http://wheelinghealthright.home.qtego.net. Tickets are $160 per couple, which includes two free drink tickets, and $85 a piece, with one free drink ticket included. The organization hopes to set a new record for its fundraising from the Chefs’ Auction this year, and welcomes contributions of any amount. Wheeling Health Right is a nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to the uninsured and underinsured populations in the Wheeling and Ohio Valley area. The clinic opened in 1985, and has been recognized as one of the best free clinics in the United States. The staff and board members work tirelessly to obtain funding from many different sources, including government grants and donors. The clinic has expanded over the years to include a pharmacy and dental clinic, and provides an opportunity for resident physicians and dental students to gain valuable experience treating patients in a hands-on setting, while providing much needed care for those who otherwise may not have access to it. With ongoing changes in the political and government climate, it remains a challenge to generate money to sufficiently fund everything that Health Right does, and the clinic relies upon the generous donations of other organizations and individuals to continue to provide healthcare assistance to our community. In addition to the Chefs’ Auction, which is a wonderful event, there are many other ways that you can contribute to Wheeling Health Right and the work that they do. Please consider checking out their website for more information about the organization, the Chefs’ Auction, and other ways to get involved. ( http://www.wheelinghealthright.com/) Bordas & Bordas has been proud to be a supporter of Wheeling Health Right, and many of our attorneys and staff members have been involved in Wheeling Health Right in a variety of ways for many years, including as board and executive committee members. We look forward to seeing you at another successful Chefs’ Auction this year!

To many people, the thought of hiring a lawyer is an intimidating idea they would like to avoid. Many people are of the opinion that they can resolve an issue or work out a problem on their own without legal assistance. In some situations, this may in fact be true. However, there are many situations as outlined below in which obtaining legal representation is your best option: When the laws that you are dealing with are complicated. For example, if you are running your own business and needing legal assistance with contracts, HR issues, tax dilemmas, and/or other areas that require specific expertise – it is helpful to retain an attorney who is familiar with the area of law at hand who can help you navigate any nuances so as to ensure you are in full compliance with constantly changing laws and to avoid other issues that may arise rather than to incur the costs of doing this research and work on your own; When you are dealing with individuals who have an upper hand in the situation. This type of scenario is often at play when a person is dealing with insurance companies - whether that be in regard to a property damage claim, an automobile accident, a claim for life insurance benefits, etc. In these situations, the insurance companies who hold the money or benefits you are requesting will often try to control the situation or do what they can to avoid having to pay you what you deserve. Having an attorney who handles these situations and who can negotiate on your behalf is beneficial as you will likely make out better in the end than if you had dealt with the situation on your own. When you are dealing with complicated procedural requirements. Whether you are involved with a criminal matter, disputing an issue with the DMV, or some other type of board or appeal panel– it is often helpful to retain an attorney who can gather evidence, call witnesses, and ensure certain procedural requirements are met so that your interests are well represented and a procedural mistake is not made on your part which can prove fatal to the interest or right that you are trying to protect. When you are partaking in estate planning or trying to work out child custody issues. Matters that involve these two areas of the law are very personal and often emotional. Hiring an attorney to assist you with estate planning type matters and child custody issues is often in your best interest as attorneys can think in a level headed manner and can see the overall picture at hand which can then enable them to assist you in preparing for the future or working out an issue with a relative that you could otherwise not do so on your own. If you know you are going to be sued or are planning to take legal action. It is never a bad idea to consult with an attorney when you know that you are soon going to be involved in legal action. The legal system can be complicated and handling a legal matter on your own can be time consuming as well as frustrating without having the experience of an attorney to assist you with your legal matter. In sum, contacting an attorney who is well experienced in the area of law in which you are dealing is never a bad idea so as to ensure that your interests and rights are protected.

This past Wednesday, a jury delivered a verdict of over $80 million in damages against Bayer, formerly Monsanto, to a California man who alleged that his exposure to Roundup weed killer, that he used on a large swath of land in Sonoma County, caused his development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. The jury valued the man’s injuries and damages at over $5 million and assessed an additional $75 million in punitive damages against Bayer, in part on the basis of internal documents that Monsanto has known about the risks of glyphosate in its Roundup product for decades and chose not to divulge the information about the dangers of its product to American consumers. While Bayer continues to hold fast to the company line that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, Wednesday’s verdict is the second in as many cases to go to verdict to result in a multi-million dollar verdict for the injured parties, lending additional weight to the science demonstrating a causal link between exposure to glyphosate and the development of cancer. Several national and international agencies, , including the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment., have concluded that the evidence is sufficient to classify Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, as a probable cause of cancer in humans. alt="" width="1200" height="628" />On the heels of this decision, another Roundup trial began this week in California. On Thursday a jury heard opening statements alleging that decades of spraying the weed killer caused a married couple's aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the third Roundup case to go to trial. And hundreds more cases are pending throughout the country, with more than 600 cases pending in California alone. While Bayer and Monsanto may continue to dispute the science, thus far, the American public has spoken loudly and clearly on their thoughts about whether exposure to glyphosate causes cancer. If you believe you have contracted cancer from exposure to Roundup or glyphosate, you should contact an experienced attorney to explore a potential claim.

Kiosks are everywhere for many different reasons supposedly to make things move much quicker all the while efficient and saving costs for many businesses. We use them anywhere from banking, to groceries, to theme parks, you name it. I’ve always been a fan, but every time I wonder is it going to work or will something go wrong? I now can say I unequivocally am a fan. The convenience of a kiosk has a thumbs up from me. I am not talking about just any kiosk. I am talking about the best kiosk ever, the WV Department of Motor Vehicles kiosk. In 2017, West Virginia opened a handful of kiosks across the State, one of which was placed here in Wheeling. With the kiosk, you are supposed to be able to renew vehicle registrations and driver’s licenses providing no changes were necessary to the already existing documents. Recently, I celebrated a birthday and with that, came the time to renew my driver’s license. I dreaded the thought of spending half a day at the DMV. Just wasn’t on my wish list of things to do. Then, my friend reminded me of the kiosk. I mulled over the idea and thought there is no way will this work. Just too good to be true. Seriously, a half day’s adventure to the DMV now reduced to a three-minute painless transaction? Surely something would go wrong. Desperate though, I went to give it a shot. I approached this kiosk almost grimacing. I was confident that I should run other errands on this visit to the local kiosk because aftercall, I did not want this to be pointless given all had had on my plate. And, there I was. The face off. Me versus the kiosk. I entered my information and a few screens later with the swipe of a credit card, the renewal transaction was complete with receipt in hand. Where were the kids? My goodness still in line awaiting their favorite item off the menu? I glanced at my watch and the entire process of renewal took less than three minutes. Yep, too good to be true. Had the kiosk won this face off? Here I was left standing with the receipt in hand and a promise that the hard copy of my license would be delivered to my home within two weeks started worrying me. Just watch I thought, I will end up with an expired license because surely somehow this effortless, rapid process would fail me. I was not yet quite ready to concede to the seamless process still. As the two-week mark approached with my birthday just four days away, the anxiety grew as I convinced myself that come Monday, I would certainly have to make that dreaded trip to the DMV. Two-weeks to the day there it was. Arrived just as promised. No errors. I delightfully found myself actually smiling thinking about how skeptical I had been. I have conceded, the kiosk is the champion. I am a believer. Less than three minutes is all it took. Thank you West Virginia for choosing Wheeling to place one of these kiosks, it truly makes for a delightful, painless, experience.

Recently, in the case of Buck v. GEICO, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted GEICO’s Motion to dismiss Mr. Buck’s insurance bad faith claim for failing to allege a denial of benefits in accordance with 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371. Mr. Buck was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein his vehicle collided with a parking bollard. Mr. Buck claimed that the accident was caused by a non-party security officer. He reported the collision to his insurance company, GEICO, and in accordance with the policy, he “provided a full and accurate description of the accident.” Despite Mr. Buck’s claim, and without any further investigation, GEICO determined that the collision was Mr. Buck’s fault.”  Thereafter, GEICO significantly increased Mr. Buck’s insurance premiums. Consequently, Mr. Buck was forced to seek insurance from another company in an attempt to offset the increased premium. Months later, Mr. Buck provided GEICO with surveillance video that showed the collision happened exactly as Mr. Buck initially described it. GEICO acknowledged its receipt and review of the video, but nonetheless determined that it’s liability position regarding the loss would not change. Later, GEICO informed Mr. Buck that it had changed its liability decision and determined that Mr. Buck was not solely responsible for the accident, but was comparatively negligent. Mr. Buck filed an underinsured motorists (UIM) claim against GEICO, and GEICO filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the basis that Mr. Buck did not assert that GEICO denied benefits under an insurance policy as required by Pennsylvania’s insurance bad faith statute, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8371. In response, Mr. Buck argued that he does not need to allege a denial of benefits to state a cause of action for insurance bad faith under § 8371 and claimed that GEICO’s investigative practices and faulty conclusions based on egregious investigative inaction provided a cause of action under § 8371. Mr. Buck relied on O’Donnell ex rel. Mitro v. Allstate Ins. Co, which states that “ection 8371 is not restricted to an insurer’s bad faith in denying a claim. An action for bad faith may also extend to the insurer’s investigative practices.” 734 A.2d 901, 904 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). However, in UPMC Health Sys. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 497, 506 (3d Cir. 2004), the Court explained, that O’Donnell merely clarified that “the alleged bad faith need not be limited to the literal act of denying a claim,” but “the essence of a bad faith claim must be the unreasonable and intentional (or reckless) denial of benefits.” Id. Thus, the Court determined that Mr. Buck must allege the denial of benefits to state a claim under § 8371. In response, Mr. Buck argued that GEICO’s investigative practices and faulty conclusions based on egregious investigative inaction effectively denied him the benefits of (1) fair and reasonable treatment upon submission of a claim; (2) the wisdom and experience of a multi-billion-dollar organization standing behind you in your moment of need; and (3) an insurance carrier to pursue your deductible from the actual party at fault. Nonetheless, the Court noted that Mr. Buck did not allege in his Complaint that any of these benefits arose from his insurance policy, or that he was denied those benefits. Accordingly, the Court could not consider Mr. Buck’s assertions in resolving GEICO’s motion to dismiss. The Court explained that even assuming that the bad faith denial of the benefits claimed by Mr. Buck was properly alleged in the Complaint, Mr. Buck’s argument fails because he does not allege the denial of any benefits within the meaning of the statute. “‘ad faith’ as it concern allegations made by an insured against his insurer ha acquired a particular meaning in the law.” Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186, 199 (Pa. 2007). Courts in Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit have consistently held that “ plaintiff bringing a claim under must demonstrate that an insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured through ‘any frivolous or unfounded refusal to pay proceeds of a policy.’” Wise v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 459 F.3d 443, 452 (3d Cir. 2006). None of the “benefits” that GEICO allegedly denied Mr. Buck concern the refusal to pay proceeds under an insurance policy. Therefore, the Court concluded that because Mr. Buck did not allege a “denial of benefits” within the meaning of § 8371, GEICO’s motion to dismiss was granted. However, Mr. Buck was given the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.

I must begin by admitting that I was born and raised in Massachusetts, and I grew up cheering for the New England Patriots. I am not old enough to have cheered for the Boston Patriots, but I would have had I been old enough. I grew up a die-hard fan of all sports teams in Massachusetts. I truly enjoyed watching the Super Bowl this month, especially because the New England Patriots won their 6th Super Bowl. Now with those admissions out of the way, I want to tell a story about my trip to the 2002 Super Bowl and how I saw something that showed me even then that Tom Brady was special. I won’t go as far as to say I knew he would be would someday be known as the “GOAT” (Greatest of all Time), but it was clear he was going to be special. I was fortunate enough to have attended the February of 2002 Super Bowl in which the Patriots, led by Tom Brady, defeated the St Louis Rams 20-17, with a last second field goal. The Rams were heavily favored to win the game and were known as “The Greatest Show on Turf.” The trip to New Orleans was magical for many reasons outside of seeing first hand that Tom Brady was something to admire as a football player. This was my first Super Bowl. I went without tickets and just to enjoy the festivities of a Super Bowl.  I expected it would be my only Super Bowl, so I wanted to go to the game at all costs. I was told that I should expect to pay a thousand dollars or so over the face value. As luck would have it, the Rams were heavily favored by more than two touchdowns. This factor drove the price of the tickets down and I was able to snag one at face value. However, the magic started long before I got my ticket. That season, Tom started as the back up to an All Pro quarterback, Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe was injured after a number of games, but when he came back, Brady kept the starting position. Ultimately, Brady led the Patriots to the Super Bowl. The most astonishing aspect of the Super Bowl is what happened at the closing drive but was not seen by anybody other than the crowd that was at the game. As the Patriots started that winning drive, there was a TV timeout. As the Patriots offense was huddled on the field waiting for the time out to end, you could see a number of the players nervously rocking back and forth or pacing. The players were full of nervous energy because they were being watched by over 100 million people, who were watching what was likely the most crucial part of their football careers. They were living and creating history - and they knew it. And depending on the result, it could be the absolute worst or the absolute best time of, not only their football lives, but possibly of their entire lives. On the sidelines, the coaches were frantically reviewing their play books and the other players were pacing backing and forth, were on their knees praying and/or shouting words of encouragement to their team players on the field. Among all the chaos and fervor of the closing minutes of a tied score Super Bowl, there was one person who appeared to remain calm under all the pressure, Tom Brady. He walked from the sideline and into the huddle with a cool and composed appearance. When he got into the huddle, you could see him motioning with his hands to all the players to calm down. They proceeded to drive the down field for the winning field goal. Now, many players have exhibited heroic actions to win a Super Bowl with the same coolness. For example, there is the story of Joe Montana pointing out John Candy in the stands to the rest of the offense, which as the story goes, relaxed all the players before driving for a winning score. However, never has a quarterback with little experience or fanfare calm a whole team down and lead them to the winning score in a Super Bowl. Brady was famously a 6th round draft choice, who had never started a game until that season, and had thrown for a total of 6 yards the season before, his first in the NFL. That one scenario speaks volumes about Brady’s unmatched swagger, confidence and leadership. I could cite countless football statistics that show Brady is the best of all time. However, the only stat I need is 6 Super Bowl wins out of nine appearances. This stat has so many ramifications. First this was over an 18 year career to date, with the first Super Bowl being his first full season in 2001 and the last being the last NFL season of 2018. This is more Super Bowl appearances than every other TEAM over the NFL history and is more appearances than 11 teams COMBINED over their NFL history. He has won 6 Super Bowls to date. This is more than any other TEAM in NFL History, except the Pittsburgh Steelers who also won 6 Super Bowls. However, this was done with completely different teams years apart and a number of quarterbacks. Now I have argued over my lifetime that other Boston sports heroes were one of the greatest of all time or others that were, arguably, the greatest of all time. The key word is “argued.” Never before Tom Brady did I unequivocally believe the respective Boston sports hero was the best or one of the best of all time, whether it was Bobby Orr, Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Ted Williams etc. With Tom Brady, it is a fact. He is a GOAT, Greatest Of All Time. End of story. Image courtesy of USA Today.

In 2019, it seems like arbitration is everywhere you look. If you take a new job, rent a truck, or buy a new cell phone, it’s almost certain there’s an arbitration clause lurking in the shadows. But that may be changing. Like many employers, Google required its employees to resolve any work-related disputes through arbitration. Recently, however, Google was rocked by allegations that some of its executives had been guilty of sexual harassment. Victims couldn’t sue for recovery, and the private nature of the arbitration process kept these allegations out of the spotlight. When 20,000 Google employees walked out in protest, the issue of sexual harassment came to the forefront--and, with it, the issue of forcing victims into arbitration. Google responded by repealing its arbitration policy for sexual harassment cases. Not long after, Google went a step further by repealing the policy for all disputes involving its full-time employees. Google is not the first company to roll back forced arbitration. Other large companies, like Microsoft, Uber, Adobe and Intuit, have done the same thing. Could this be a trend? Will other companies see the wisdom of repealing a policy widely considered unfair and oppressive? Only time will tell. But we may not have to wait. On February 28, the organizers behind the Google walkout appeared with Democratic lawmakers as they introduced a new bill to impose a nationwide ban on forced arbitration in the workplace. Senator Richard Blumenthal, one of the bill’s sponsors, acknowledged what Google had done voluntarily, but added: “We’re not willing to wait for corporate America to do the right thing. This kind of injustice has to end for the sake of everyone in the workplace, men and women.” Hopefully, the momentum we’ve already seen in the private sector will spur Congress to act. Forced arbitration deprives honest, hard working Americans of their full legal remedies. It’s especially harmful in the employment setting, where an employee’s livelihood and future may be hanging in the balance. Congress should move this bill quickly and end workplace arbitration once and for all.