<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
	<channel>
			<title>Pennsylvania Defense Institute Recent Updates</title>
			<link>http://www.padefense.org/feed.html</link>
			<description />
			<language>en</language>
			<copyright>Pennsylvania Defense Institute 2006</copyright>
			<ttl>120</ttl>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates" /><feedburner:info uri="pennsylvaniadefenseinstituterecentupdates" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Superior Court Addresses Rejection of UIM Forms</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/uBNXFdyoB5s/pennsylvania-superior-court-addresses-rejection-of-uim-forms.html</link>
				<description>Pennsylvania Superior Court Voids UIM Rejection Form in Jones v. Unitrin&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/uBNXFdyoB5s" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:36:17 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-superior-court-addresses-rejection-of-uim-forms.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				
				<category>UIM</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-superior-court-addresses-rejection-of-uim-forms.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Superior Court Gives Guidance on "Prejudice" to UM Insurer for Failure to Notify of "Phantom" Vehicle</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/SoqzpZxSGkY/superior-court-gives-guidance-on-prejudice-to-um-insurer-for-failure-to-notify-of-phantom-vehicle.html</link>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;In Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance, the plaintiff contended he struck the rear of a vehicle driven by Piontkowski when a "phantom" vehicle caused Piontkowski to stop short. Harleysville denied Venderhoff's claim for UM benefits for failure to timely advise them of the "phantom" vehicle. The lower court held that Harleysville did not establish prejudice for Vanderhoff's late notice, as it did not show that the result of Harleysville investigation of the claim would have been different had there been timely notice of the phantom vehicle. A Superior Court panel unanimously reversed the trial court decision.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/SoqzpZxSGkY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:00:28 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/superior-court-gives-guidance-on-prejudice-to-um-insurer-for-failure-to-notify-of-phantom-vehicle.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/superior-court-gives-guidance-on-prejudice-to-um-insurer-for-failure-to-notify-of-phantom-vehicle.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Covell v. Bell Sports, Rendering Third Circuit Decision Final and Absolute</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/qJhAYyR9MRE/u.s.-supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-covell-v.-bell-sports-rendering-third-circuit-decision-final-and-absolute.html</link>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;In Covell v. Bell Sports, Inc., the United States Supreme Court last week rendered the Third Circuit's decision final and absolute by denying Plaintiff's Petition for Certioari. This action removes any doubt of the applicable law in products liability actions in the federal courts in this Circuit. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks to PDI member Scott Toomey for this update and his work on the case. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/qJhAYyR9MRE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:26:27 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/u.s.-supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-covell-v.-bell-sports-rendering-third-circuit-decision-final-and-absolute.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/u.s.-supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-covell-v.-bell-sports-rendering-third-circuit-decision-final-and-absolute.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds that Uninsured Drivers May Recover Economic Damages from Tortfeasor Driver</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/9ra7OBrKZtM/major-um-decision-issued-by-pennsylvania-supreme-court.html</link>
				<description>Pennsylvania Supreme Court allows uninsured motorists to pursue economic loss claims against tortfeasor.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/9ra7OBrKZtM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:31:37 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/major-um-decision-issued-by-pennsylvania-supreme-court.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				
				<category>Automobile</category>
				<category>Benefits</category>
				<category>First</category>
				<category>Insurance,</category>
				<category>Party</category>
				<category>UM,</category>
				<category>Uninsured,</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/major-um-decision-issued-by-pennsylvania-supreme-court.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Insurer Obtains Summary Judgment on Faulty Workmanship and Bad Faith Claim Handling</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/pUStA81H_4w/insurer-obtains-summary-judgment-on-faulty-workmanship-and-bad-faith-claim-handling.html</link>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT;"&gt;
&lt;p align="left"&gt;Summary Judgment for Insurers&lt;br /&gt;on Faulty Workmanship and Bad Faith Claim Handling Allegations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"&gt;
&lt;p align="left"&gt;By:Timothy W. Stalker, Esq. and Matthew J.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/pUStA81H_4w" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:19:48 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/insurer-obtains-summary-judgment-on-faulty-workmanship-and-bad-faith-claim-handling.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/insurer-obtains-summary-judgment-on-faulty-workmanship-and-bad-faith-claim-handling.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court Splits on Extension of NIED Cause of Action</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/uCQpDfmmaHI/pennsylvania-supreme-court-splits-on-extension-of-nied-cause-of-action.html</link>
				<description>Pennsylvania Supreme Court Splits on Extension of NIED Cause of Action&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/uCQpDfmmaHI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 10:25:12 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-splits-on-extension-of-nied-cause-of-action.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-splits-on-extension-of-nied-cause-of-action.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules on Important Property Damage Subrogation Issue</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/c5IXmsB9-so/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-on-important-property-damage-subrogation-issue.html</link>
				<description>The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision on December 21, 2011 in the case of Jones v. Nationwide affirming the practice of carriers returning deductibles to its insureds on a pro rata basis after a subrogation recovery against a third party tortfeasor.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/c5IXmsB9-so" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:49:31 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-on-important-property-damage-subrogation-issue.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-on-important-property-damage-subrogation-issue.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Counterpoint To Become On-Line Publication</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/H_P6b44RNNw/counterpoint-to-become-on-line-publication.html</link>
				<description>With the April 2012 edition, Counrterpoint will become an on-line publication for PDI members. Hard copies will continue to be mailed to all Pennsylvania judges and law libraries.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/H_P6b44RNNw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:07:18 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/counterpoint-to-become-on-line-publication.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/counterpoint-to-become-on-line-publication.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Superior Court Overturns Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/f4GjCklfJHo/superior-court-overturns-barrick-v.-holy-spirit-hospital.html</link>
				<description>On November 23, 2011, an en banc panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a 38 paged Opinion that serves to overturn the trial court's decision to allow one party to review written communications by the opposing party to the opposing party's expert in the case of Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 1856 MDA 2009 (Pa. Super. Nov. 23, 2011)(8-1 Opinion by Mundy, J.)(Bowes, J. concurring and dissenting).&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/f4GjCklfJHo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:03:57 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/superior-court-overturns-barrick-v.-holy-spirit-hospital.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/superior-court-overturns-barrick-v.-holy-spirit-hospital.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Third Circuit Issues Important ERISA Reimbursement Decision</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/ifXN4C7mTuY/third-circuit-issues-important-erisa-reimbursement-decision.html</link>
				<description>In its recent November 16, 2011 decision in the case of U.S. Airways v. McCutchen, ___ F.3d ___,  2011 WL 5557411 (3d Cir. 2011Sloviter, Fuentes, and Vanaskie, JJ.)(Opinion by Fuentes, J.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit just held that an insurer is not entitled to 100 percent reimbursement of paid medical expenses when an injured employee has recovered only a fraction of his damages from a third party.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/ifXN4C7mTuY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:45:31 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/third-circuit-issues-important-erisa-reimbursement-decision.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/third-circuit-issues-important-erisa-reimbursement-decision.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court To Address Important Delay Damages Issue in Post-Koken Case</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/N250BxPiQdc/pennsylvania-supreme-court-to-address-important-delay-damages-issue-in-post-koken-case.html</link>
				<description>In the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision in the case of Marlette v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. and Jordan, the appellate court addressed the issue was whether the delay damages calculation should be based upon the higher jury verdict or the lower figure that resulted after the verdict was molded down by the court to the amount of the available UIM limits.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/N250BxPiQdc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:34:20 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-to-address-important-delay-damages-issue-in-post-koken-case.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-to-address-important-delay-damages-issue-in-post-koken-case.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Lehigh County Court Agrees to Bifurcation of Post-Koken Case At Trial Stage</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/qTYDh-toAYE/lehigh-county-court-agrees-to-bifurcation-of-post-koken-case-at-trial-stage.html</link>
				<description>In the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas post-Koken case of Purta v. Blower and Erie Ins. Exch., No. 2010-C-2515 (C.P. Lehigh Co. Sept. 20, 2011 Reibman, J.), the Honorable Edward D. Reibman addressed the seemingly novel issue presented by a Motion to Severance filed by the UIM carrier Defendant to bifurcate jointly filed third party and underinsured motorist (UIM) claims into separate trials.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/qTYDh-toAYE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:44:07 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/lehigh-county-court-agrees-to-bifurcation-of-post-koken-case-at-trial-stage.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/lehigh-county-court-agrees-to-bifurcation-of-post-koken-case-at-trial-stage.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Clarification of Recurring Issue of Challenges to Late Joinder of Additional Defendants</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/_RN-GRsAyC8/clarification-of-recurring-issue-of-challenges-to-late-joinder-of-additional-defendants.html</link>
				<description>Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued an Opinion on a recurring issue in the case of  Chelland v. Siegfried v. Solomon, No. 2010 - CV - 6113 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Nov. 1, 2011 Nealon, J.), which involved an additional defendant's challenge to an original defendant's untimely joinder of the additional defendant.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/_RN-GRsAyC8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:27:50 -0500</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/clarification-of-recurring-issue-of-challenges-to-late-joinder-of-additional-defendants.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/clarification-of-recurring-issue-of-challenges-to-late-joinder-of-additional-defendants.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Claims Rep's Mental Impressions, Opinions, etc. Created Prior to Trial are Protected</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/PElAcPC9N3g/claims-reps-mental-impressions-opinions-etc.-created-prior-to-trial-are-protected.html</link>
				<description>In an apparent case of first impression, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed an important discovery issue surrounding the scope of discoverability of a claims representative's mental impressions in yet another of his opinions handed down in the case of Church of the Forgotten Souls v. NGM Ins. Co., No. 2010 - CV - 7078 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 5, 2011 Nealon, J.).&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/PElAcPC9N3g" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:43:52 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/claims-reps-mental-impressions-opinions-etc.-created-prior-to-trial-are-protected.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				
				<category>Claims,</category>
				<category>Discovery</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/claims-reps-mental-impressions-opinions-etc.-created-prior-to-trial-are-protected.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Twitter</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/ljSdK-SDS-I/pennsylvania-supreme-court-on-twitter.html</link>
				<description>The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania announced last week that it would launch a Twitter feed to instantly communicate opinions, rulings, and other relevant information. Recipients can sign up at http://twitter.com/SupremeCtofPA.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/ljSdK-SDS-I" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:27:46 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-on-twitter.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-on-twitter.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Pennsylvania Supreme Court Hands Down Two Important UM/UIM Decisions</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/j3G1shQTLNw/pennsylvania-supreme-court-hands-down-two-important-umuim-decisions.html</link>
				<description>Earlier this week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down two important decisions on major UM/UIM issues both of which opinions where written by Justice Orie Melvin.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/j3G1shQTLNw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:26:11 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-hands-down-two-important-umuim-decisions.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				
				<category>Automobile,</category>
				<category>UIM,</category>
				<category>UM,</category>
				<category>Underinsured,</category>
				<category>Uninsured,</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pennsylvania-supreme-court-hands-down-two-important-umuim-decisions.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>PDI Annual Conference Summary</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/gO9DynttjMU/pdi-annual-conference-summary.html</link>
				<description>Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) held its 43rd Annual Conference July 21-22, 2011 at the historic Bedford Springs Resort in Bedford, Pennsylvania.  Located in the mountains of south - central Pennsylvania this warm and welcoming resort offers luxury accommodations, historic dining venues, a championship golf course and spring fed pool and spa as well as hiking, fishing and horseback riding.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/gO9DynttjMU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:45:21 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pdi-annual-conference-summary.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/pdi-annual-conference-summary.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Judge Terrence Nealon of Lackawanna County Analyzes Regular Use Exclusion</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/vxUyyUTCvtI/erie-ins.-exchange-v.-soroka.html</link>
				<description>On May 24, 2011, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision in the case of Erie Ins. Exchange v. Soroka, No. 09 - CV - 1056 (Lacka. Co. May 24, 2011, Nealon, J.) which involved the UIM coverage exclusion for non-owned, regularly used vehicles.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/vxUyyUTCvtI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:36:59 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/erie-ins.-exchange-v.-soroka.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/erie-ins.-exchange-v.-soroka.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Herd Chiropractic v.State Farm Insurance</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/l8KVBXx8HsU/herd-chiropractic-v.state-farm-insurance.html</link>
				<description>Pennsylvania Superior Court holds that an insurance company may still be liable for attorney's fees under 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1797 even when it properly invokes the peer review process.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/l8KVBXx8HsU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:25:32 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/herd-chiropractic-v.state-farm-insurance.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>David Cole</dc:creator>
				<category>None</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/herd-chiropractic-v.state-farm-insurance.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
		
			<item>
				<title>UIM Credit for Excess/Umbrella Policy Limits Stands</title>
				<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~3/DwEx4Jaa88o/uim-credit-for-excessumbrella-policy-limits-stands.html</link>
				<description>n July 27, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied allocatur in the two companion underinsured motorist cases of D'Adamo v. Erie Ins. Exchange and Holocher v. Erie Ins. Exchange, thereby allowing to stand a Superior Court panel's ruling (found at 4 A.3d 1090 (Pa.Super. 2010)) that benefits collected under a tortfeasor's umbrella insurance policy can serve as an offset or credit against the amount of recoverable underinsured motorist benefits in a given matter.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PennsylvaniaDefenseInstituteRecentUpdates/~4/DwEx4Jaa88o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:19:31 -0400</pubDate>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/uim-credit-for-excessumbrella-policy-limits-stands.html</guid>
				<dc:creator>Dan Cummins</dc:creator>
				
				<category>Automobile</category>
				<category>Benefits,</category>
				<category>Insurance</category>
				<category>Motorist</category>
				<category>UIM,</category>
				<category>Underinsured</category>
			<feedburner:origLink>http://www.padefense.org/pdi-blog/uim-credit-for-excessumbrella-policy-limits-stands.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
			</channel>
</rss>

