Dory L. Sater, Esquire

Automobile Insurance in Pennsylvania - Important Reminders regarding Tort Election!

2015-01-16T09:43:00.000-08:00

Automobile Law in Pennsylvania – What you should know to protect yourself.

When purchasing auto insurance in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania you have two choices when selecting your policy. You can either chose (1) the limited tort option or (2) the full tort option. If you are involved in a motor vehicle accident, you may pursue a claim against the driver at fault for damages that you sustain. The type of damages that you can pursue depends in part upon your own motor vehicle insurance policy.

In Pennsylvania, when you choose the “full tort” option, you pay a slightly higher premium for that policy. However, you can seek recovery against the wrongdoer for both economic damages (wage loss, out-of-pocket expenses, outstanding medical bills, property damage), and non-economic damages (pain and suffering), no matter what type of psychological or physical injury you sustain.

On the other hand, when you choose the “limited tort” option, you pay a slightly lower premium. However, you cannot seek recovery for non-economic damages unless your injuries constitute a “serious injury” which is defined under the law as a “personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.” Most sprains and strains, or injuries that have healed and no longer cause pain or limitations in performing activities of daily living, will not meet the requirements to overcome the limited tort threshold.

Given these choices, it is better for you to chose the full tort option when purchasing automobile insurance so that you are more protected in the event of injury sustained in an auto accident.

For more information on this, or if you are involved in an automobile accident please call or email me for a free consultation. I would also be happy to review your automobile insurance policy for free to make sure you have appropriate coverage. I can also review to see if I can save you any money on your premiums.

THE SATER LAW FIRM, LLC

5248 Township Line Road

Drexel Hill, PA 19026

610-789-1100 Office

610-789-1130 fax

dorysater@saterfirm.com

Winning in Traffic Court: How to present a defense in traffic court and win.

2014-12-05T10:56:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been in the position where you received a received a traffic citation? Or perhaps you were involved in an accident that was not your fault yet were still issued a citation for careless driving or some similar offense. That is exactly the situation that my client was presented with yesterday in Delaware Co. traffic court.

My client was involved in a automobile accident in October 10th of this year. She was at an intersection that was controlled by a left turn signal. As she approached the intersection, the light was green, she did what a reasonably prudent person would do; She slowed down and cleared her way before commencing her turn. Noticing that there were no vehicles that were so close as to constitute a hazard to her, she proceeded to make her turn. However, little did she know, there was a vehicle proceeding from the opposite direction that was travelling at a very high rate of speed. This vehicle came upon my client's vehicle so quickly that there was little my client could do to get out of the way. The other vehicle collided with my client's vehicle on the passenger side causing extensive damage.

Police responded to the scene of the accident after the fact. After speaking to both drivers, the officer issued my client a citation for "careless driving." My client pleaded not guilty and asked for a hearing.

At the hearing conducted yesterday we presented the testimony of my client and the police officer. Since the police officer was not actually present during the accident, his testimony was based solely on what he saw upon his arrival at the scene. This testimony was limited to the position of the vehicles and the damage each vehicle sustained. There were no other witnesses. The other driver was not present at the hearing. (They almost never show-up).

The judge had no choice but to dismiss the ticket.

The case boiled down to lack of evidence. Since the police officer did not actually witness my client driving carelessly he could not testify to that fact. Furthermore, and most importantly, the police officer was prevented from testifying to what the other drier or any witnesses said because of the rules of Evidence against the admissibility of hearsay statements.

In the end, I was able to establish that the officer did not have any evidence to support the charge of careless driving and the ticket was dismissed.

Let this be a lesson to all. If you get a ticket, and you did no wrong. Fight it! As you do fight it please keep in mind that the police officer who issued you the ticket will most likely not have enough evidence to support the charge and you can have the ticket dismissed.

An understanding of the basic rules of evidence can go a long way in keeping your driving record clean and more money in your pocket.

It was especially important in this case because my client sustained serious injuries in the accident. While traffic citations are not normally admissible in civil cases for personal injuries, I feel that it is important that these tickets be fought if only for the sake of removing any thoughts that my client did any wrong from the minds of the insurance adjusters.

If you need any help with this kind of issue, please do not hesitate to call or email me. We are committed to diligently representing our clients in all matter at the Sater Law Firm. WE look foreard to serving all your legal needs.

Dory L. Sater, Esq.
610-789-1100
dorysater@saterfirm.com

The Sater Law Firm

Big News!!!

2014-09-30T13:23:00.000-07:00

Well I have done it! I have finally chased down my dream of being my own boss and owning my own law firm.   I am now officially open for business.

I am proud to announce the opening of The Sater Law Firm!

The Sater Law Firm is a full service law firm specializing in plaintiff's personal injury law.   We are located at 5248 Township Line Road in Drexel Hill, Delaware Co, Pennsylvania!

We stand ready to serve all your legal needs!       I look forward to serving you in the future!

Dory

Alternative Dispute Resolution - ADR

2013-09-23T18:59:00.001-07:00

Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR is a valuable tool useful for litigators in helping bring about successfull resolution of cases without the unnecessary cost of a full-blown trial. ADR can provide an excellent means to resolving cases quickly and in a more cost effective manner.

When I first began my practice 15 years ago, I started as an Insurance Defense Attorney. I represented insurance companies with zeal and enthusiasm for the greater part of 9 years. After a 2 year forray into commercial litigation, I am now (and have been for the past 4 and a half years) representing plaintiffs in all types of personal injury cases. This experience has put me in an excellent position to sit as a neutral arbitrator in cases where the parties a seeking some kind of ADR. As such, I have decided to begin actively seeking opportunities to sit as an arbitrator or mediator.

I hope that you would consider me as your next arbitrator or mediator for your future need. I can be reached at dory@hgsklawyers.com or at 267-350-6638 if you are interested.

My mission is to provide everyone involved with an opportunity for a prompt, full, and fair hearing at a reasonable cost. I look forward to serving all you legal needs.

Dory L. Sater, Esquire

Primer on Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings and Abuse of Process

2013-08-28T12:29:00.000-07:00

WRONGFUL USE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS (DRAGONETTI) vs.　 ABUSE OF PROCESS

The torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process are separate and distinct, but often confused. Werner v. J. Plater-Zyberk, 2002 Pa. Super. 42 (2002); Hart v. O'Malley, 781 A.2d 1211, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2001); Al Hamilton Contracting Co. v. Cowder, 434 Pa. Super. 491, 644 A.2d 188, 191 (1994).

Wrongful use of civil proceedings arises when a party institutes a lawsuit with a malicious motive and without probable cause. Id. 　Abuse of process, on the other hand, is concerned with a perversion of the process after it has issued and occurs when the legal process is utilized to accomplish some unlawful purpose for which it was not designed. Id. 　Another essential difference between these two causes of action are their geneses. Abuse of process is a state common law claim. However, allegations of malicious prosecution invoke Pennsylvania's statutory law in the form of the wrongful use of civil proceedings statute, also known as the "Dragonetti Act," 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8351-8355.

The Dragonetti Act states, in pertinent part:

Wrongful use of civil proceedings

(a) Elements of action.--A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or

continuation of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other
for wrongful use of civil proceedings [if]:

(1) He acts in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and

primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery,

joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the proceedings are

based; and

(2) The proceedings have terminated in favor of the person against whom they

are brought.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351.

Thus, in an action for wrongful use of civil proceedings, plaintiff first must demonstrate that the person taking part in the initiation, procurement or continuation of civil proceedings either acted in a grossly negligent manner or lacked probable cause.　 Sentner, 725 A.2d 779, 782, 1999 Pa. Super. 24 (1999). The plaintiff must also prove that the prior proceedings terminated in its favor and against the Dragonetti action defendant. Id.

Conversely, "abuse of process is, in essence, the use of legal process as a tactical weapon to coerce a desired result that is not the legitimate object of the process." McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa. 247, 259, 535 A.2d 1020, 1026 (1987); Shiner v. Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228, 1236 (Pa. Super. 1998); Rosen v. Am. Bank of Rolla, 426 Pa. Super. 376, 627 A.2d 190, 192 (1993).

To establish a claim for abuse of process, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant: (1) used a legal process against the plaintiff, (2) primarily to accomplish a purpose for which the process was not designed; and that (3) harm has been caused to the plaintiff. Id. This tort differs from that of wrongful use of civil proceedings insofar as the gravamen of an abuse of process claim is the "perversion of legal process" in order to achieve a purpose which is not an authorized goal of the　 procedure in question. Werner, 2002 Pa. Super. at 42; Rosen, 627 A.2d at 192.

If you think you have a problem like this, have any questions, or would like to discuss this with me in detail please email me at dory@hgsklawyers.com or call 267-350-6638

See my attorney profile at My profile

Taking a break from the practice of law

2013-01-12T19:42:00.001-08:00

Weekends provide an opportunity for busy attorneys and associates to take a break and bring balance to their lives. Saturdays for me are really the only chance I get to spend quality time with my wife and 4 year old and 1 year old daughters.

This is a big issues for people in my position. In one hand I want to work hard and excel as a lawyer; to make my bosses and clients happy. On the other hand I need to be a good husband and father. Balancing these two aspects of who I am is probably the hardest thing I have to do. Much harder than making a case to a jury or responding to a difficult motion for summary judgment.

So how do I do it? Well, I don't know. I struggle with this issue every day I go to work. I try to get to work early as I can and stay as late as possible. This usually leaves me with less than two hours a day to see my kids. (I get home at around 7 and they go to bed at 8:30). It's Saturday and Sunday that I have to maximize time with my kids. Saturday and Sunday when I'm taking a break from the practice of law.

So I'm off now to play games with my kids get a good night sleep and make the most of my Sunday with Isabel and Norah and my great wife Donna.

Later all. Dory. Dory@hgsklawyers.com

2013-01-11T14:36:00.002-08:00

Serious Impairment of a Body Function – What is it?

Many people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have selected the limited tort option on their automobile insurance policies. However, I wonder if those people actually know what that means. What is comes down to is simple and can be put into a simple statement. In exchange for paying a lower premium on their auto insurance, the person who selects the “limited tort” option gives up the right to sue for pain and suffering and non-economic damages unless they have a serious impairment of a body function.

If it sounds complicated or confusing, it is. So where does that leave the analysis?

If you are subject to limited tort, you need to know what constitutes a “serious impairment of a body function.” This is where it gets tricky. Here is some guidance.

Courts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have defined this concept.

In Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733, 740 (Pa. 1998), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the following definition of “serious impairment of body function:”

The "serious impairment of body function" threshold contains two inquiries: a) What body function, if any, was impaired because of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident? b) Was the impairment of the body function serious?

The court adopted the definition set forth in DiFranco v. Pickard, 427 Mich. 32, 398 N.W.2d 896, 901 (1986), since the Pennsylvania legislature had relied upon Michigan law as a model when the limited tort option was created. Washington, 719 A.2d at 740. Quoting DiFranco, 398 N.W.2d at 901, the court also stated further that:

The focus of these inquiries is not on the injuries themselves, but on how the injuries affected a particular body function. Generally, medical testimony will be needed to establish the existence, extent, and permanency of the impairment.... In determining whether the impairment was serious, several factors should be considered: the extent of the impairment, the length of time the impairment lasted, the treatment required to correct the impairment, and any other relevant factors. An impairment need not be permanent to be serious.

What does this mean to you, the injured party who is subject to limited tort? It means that you need to be in the hands of a good attorney who can properly work up the damages aspect of your case with this definition in mind.

If you are injured in an accident or know someone who is and that person is bound by the limited tort option, I would be glad to discuss this with them.

In my next blog, I will share some examples of cases that overcome limited tort and some exceptions to limited tort.

Feel free to call or email me with any questions. I can be reached at dory@hgsklawyers.com or 267-350-6638. I would love to help.

Automobile Law - Pedestrian v. Auto

2012-08-03T13:06:00.004-07:00

The Long Road to Justice

Background and Facts:

This is a pedestrian v. automobile case. On June 14, 2007 my client was walking home from her daughter's house in Reading, PA. It was about 8:55 p.m. She decided to cross Penn Street and in order to save time crossed in the middle of the block. She was sure to clear both ways of cars before she proceeded. When she was almost all the way across the street on the other side, she was struck by a car. The driver of that car did not stop despite watching her cross the street the whole way.

First Trial:

We filed a lawsuit in 2008 and three years later in January 2011 had a trial in Berks County Court of Common Pleas. The Honorable Judge Jeffrey Schmehl presided over the jury trial. After an the close of the case and an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict. The jury found that the plaintiff (my client) was 75% responsible and the defendant was 25% responsible for the incident. However, the jury awarded my client $25,000.00 for her injuries. Judge Schmehl "molded" the verdict and entered Judgment in favor of the defendant. This verdict was inconsistent. The verdict could be interpreted in 2 ways. 1) that the plaintiff loses or 2) the plaintiff is entitled to $25,000.00. Instead of molding the verdict the Judge should have sent the jury back for further deliberations to clarify the verdict. He did not. It was on this basis the we got a new trial.

Second Trial:

On July 30, 2012 we had a second trial. We presented the same evidence and arguments. The argument simplified is that no matter why a pedestrian is in the road, a driver does NOT have the right to “run them down” if they see them in time to take action to avoid striking them. I think this is a common sense argument; something that most jurors and people in general already know.

This time the jury returned a verdict of 50% liability on the plaintiff and 50% liability on the defendant and awarded damages. This was probably what the first jury intended on doing.

Final Outcome:

Justice was served in this case after 5 long years. The jury reached a “common sense” outcome and my client was finally able to get some compensation for injuries she suffered so many years ago. However, the battle for justice continues. Since no offer to settle was ever made to the plaintiff a Petition for Delay Damages pursuant to PA Rule of Civil Procedure is being filed. This will add over $2,400.00 to the verdict. In addition a Bill of Costs is being filed seeking compensation for costs the plaintiff was forced to pay in getting her justice.

There are no appealable issues for either side so this will be final judgment in this case.

Thoughts:

It gives me great pleasure to fight for individuals who are hurt in accidents or other cases. This is just an example of how hard I and the other attorneys at Haggerty, Goldberg, Schleifer & Kupersmith, P.C. (HGSK) will fight to get justice for the people. If you or anyone you know are ever injured in an accident, a work accident, or have any other case (hopefully not), please let me know.

Dory

I can be reached at dsater@hgsklawyers.com 267-350-6600
www.hgsklawyers.com

A primer on Bad Faith law in PA

2012-05-18T07:33:00.000-07:00

Bad Faith in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Insurance companies are required by law to meet certain obligations to their clients. In Pennsylvania, and across the U.S., insurance companies must investigate claims in a timely fashion, they have a responsibility to settle claims quickly, and clear explanation must accompany any claim denial or settlement. Failure of an insurance company to meet any of its obligations is considered “bad faith.” There are many instances where an insurance company can be said to be dealing in bad faith, or unfairly, with its clients. The most prevalent among these include:

1. Unreasonably low offer to compensate for damages.
2. Delay or Denial of a claim without reason.
3. Ambiguous policy wording.
4. Failure to investigate or perform due diligence.
5. Failure to act within a reasonable time.
6. Delay in payment while waiting on a settlement with a third-party insurer.
7. Intentional deception and fraud.
8. Refusing a settlement offer and then losing in court for an amount larger than is provided for in the policy.

In many cases, we are able to recover the full amount of the claim plus additional punitive damages where appropriate and allowed by law. Bad Faith insurance claims can affect individuals (home insurance, auto, casualty, medical, et al) and businesses (product liability insurance, workplace accident, third-party liability). There are generally two types of bad faith in Pennsylvania.

“Third-party” Bad Faith

Insurance companies have a duty to act in good faith in their settlement or defense of claims against their insureds and may be liable for excess verdicts beyond their policy limits in the event that duty is breached. In the “third-party” bad faith context, an insurer does not demonstrate good faith merely by showing that it acted with sincerity. Nor is it automatically liable for an excess verdict merely because the outcome is adverse. Nor does it have an absolute duty to settle simply because it is possible that a verdict might exceed its policy limits. However, an insurer’s contractual right to settle or defend is not a right to risk the insured’s financial well-being unless there is a real and substantial chance of a finding of non-liability and an insurer will be liable for an excess verdict if it unreasonably refuses an offer of settlement. An insurer’s decision to litigate rather than settle must be based upon a reasonable assessment of the circumstances and a real and substantial chance of a verdict in favor of the insured. The critical standard (and, admittedly, a movable one,) is that of reasonableness.

“First-party” Bad Faith

The Pennsylvania Courts have held that there is no common law right of action on the part of an insured against his or her insurer based upon its alleged bad faith handling of a first-party claim. The Pennsylvania Legislature enacted the current bad faith statute, appearing at 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8371, effective July 1, 1990, which provides as follows: § 8371. Actions on insurance policies In an action arising under an insurance policy, if the court finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward the insured, the court may take all of the following actions: (1) Award interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest plus 3%. (2) Award punitive damages against the insurer. (3) Assess court costs and attorney fees against the insurer.

What is “Bad Faith”?

The courts have generally defined the term “bad faith” as referring to a “frivolous and unfounded” refusal to pay policy proceeds, involving “conduct which imports a dishonest purpose” and involves the breach of the insurer’s known duty of good faith and fair dealing through “some motive of self-interest or ill will.” To establish bad faith, the courts have held that a plaintiff must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant insurer (1) lacked a reasonable basis for its denial of coverage or benefits, and (2) that the insurer either knew, or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis in denying the claim.

New Beginnings

2012-05-08T06:45:00.001-07:00

I am very excited and proud to say that James Haggerty, Esq. formerly of Swartz Campbell is now a member of my firm!

New Baby Sater

2012-02-08T10:27:00.000-08:00

Hello all. I have been extremly busy at work these past feww days. Tomorrow we are expecting to announce the birth of our second daughter. As for updates on personal injury law, I will have some really good ones soon. Lots of developments in PI law recently that are important to everyone.

Getting back to basics

2012-01-17T14:19:00.001-08:00

Hello. It has been quite some time since I posted here. I am going to get my blog up and running again. Please be sure to look out for new posts. I will update tomorrow.

Justice for Injured Passenger of SEPTA Train

2010-02-08T12:05:00.000-08:00

Despite years of denials of liability by SEPTA, today I settled a case in favor of a injured passenger.

SEPTA repeatedly denied that they had knowledge that the woman was even injured. They repeatedly denied that the woman even made a claim for damages. We filed suit and pursued them aggressively. During discovery SEPTA miraculously found the incident report filled out by the plaintiff. Today, they finally decided to pay on this claim and an injured passenger of a negligently operated SEPTA train got some measure of justice.

Pusl v. Means -982 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. Sept 23, 2009). New Decision that effects UM/UIM Recoveries

2010-02-04T11:23:00.000-08:00

Below is a synopsis of a very important case recently decided in PA dealing with Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage.

Pusl v. Means -982 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. Sept 23, 2009).

HOLDING: When There is No Evidence That Consent To Settle And Waiver Of Subrogation Was Obtained from UIM Carrier, Superior Court Allows Molding Of Jury Verdict To Reflect Previous Underinsured Motorist Recovery For Same Accident.

The Plaintiff "Pusl" was involved in a car accident with the Defendant Means and sustained injuries. As a result of the accident Pusl made a third party claim against Means but also an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim with State Farm. The policy limits of the UIM claim were $75,000. In full accordance with Pennsylvania law, Pusl settled the UIM claim for the full $75,000 before the resolution of the pending third party claim. The case against the third party Means continued and ultimately went to trial with a jury verdict of $100,000.
After the verdict Means filed a Motion to Mold the verdict to $25,000 to take into consideration the previous UIM recovery of $75,000. Importantly, there was no record of whether the underinsured motorist carrier State Farm had waived subrogation or assigned its subrogation claim to Pusl. The trial court granted the motion and molded the verdict and Pusl appealed.
The Superior Court panel affirms the entry of the judgment in favor Pusl in the amount of $25,000, even though the jury verdict was $100,000. Even though not briefed or argued, the Superior Court first states in dicta that under Section 1722 of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law the legislature intended to prevent the recovery of first party benefits in a third party action which are paid for such as underinsured motorist benefits.
With regards to the main issued raised, argued and briefed the Superior Court holds that under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Beane, 664 A.2d 96 (Pa. 1995) and the reasoning of the trial court in Delaware County in Shankweiler v. Regan, 60 Pa. D & C 4th (Del. Co. 2002), the third party is entitled to mold the verdict.

The Superior Court notes that there was nothing in the record regarding the underinsured motorist carrier enforcing or assigning its subrogation rights. The decision is clear that if the UIM carrier had not waived subrogation or assigned its subrogation rights then the third party Means would still need to pay the $75,000 of the verdict under the subrogation claim.
Some reasons are set forth below as well as possible suggestions to use when encountering a possible Pusl situation.

1. If settling the underinsured motorist claim prior to the third party claim have the liability and damages thoroughly evaluated and try to discover the third party coverage as soon as possible before trying to amicably resolve the underinsured motorist claim. If there is a low third party policy coverage and clear liability with large/clear damages which would in essence make the third party case a "slam dunk" then the Pusl case may not become that huge of an issue.
2. If the plaintiff has already settled the underinsured motorist claim and received consent to settle and waiver of subrogation rights, then any third party defendant may need to plead as an affirmative defense the molding of the verdict as new matter if there is a potential UIM claim or even amend its new matter which was allowed in this case.
3. If settling the underinsured motorist claim prior to the third party claim, obtain the underinsured motorist carrier’s consent to settle and its waiver of subrogation.
4. If settling the underinsured motorist claim prior to the third party claim do not obtain consent to settle and waiver of subrogation but reach an agreement as to how the third party monies will be disbursed should the need to assert those rights arise after a verdict.
5. if settling the underinsured motorist claim prior to the third party claim have the exact amounts being settled for among the client and his spouse set forth in the underinsured settlement so that at trial the defendant can only seek to mold based upon what is awarded to each client.

Currently, there is a Petition for Allowance of Appeal pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which was filed by Pusl. I will keep an eye on this.

For more information please feel free to contact me by email.

See my full profile.

Medical Journal Retracts Article Linking Vaccines and Autism - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News - FOXNews.com

2010-02-03T07:51:00.001-08:00

Interesting article; maybe not really a personal injury but interesting nevertheless. My sister has been tellling me this studywas flawed for some time. I will have to keep an eye on it.

Medical Journal Retracts Article Linking Vaccines and Autism - Health News Current Health News Medical News - FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

New Blog - Personal Injury Attorney

2010-02-03T06:07:00.000-08:00

This is my first post on my new blog. I hope to acheive a few things here:
1) Educate the public about legal issues in the personal injury legal system
2) Share insights with others (lawyers and non-lawyers) about developments in the law, and
3) Share interesting stories about cases or things that happen during the litigation process (all names to be confidential, of course).

Of course as other things come up I will comment on them. I am also interested in hearing what people have to say.

For more information on me or my firm, please visit our website http://www.wsklawyers.com/

Let the blog fun begin!

Check out Dory L. Sater, Esq full profile!

Representing Injured Individuals Everywhere

2010-01-28T15:03:00.000-08:00

Representing Injured Individuals Everywhere