Successes Table of Contents - Law Firm Nelson Levine de Luca & Horst Attorneys Blue Bell, Pennsylvania

Nelson Levine de Luca & Horst, LLC, a national law firm serving the insurance industry, has had numerous successes over the years including:

Rob Stickley and Bill Krekstein were successful in obtaining summary judgment in an arson and misrepresentation case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted judgment in favor of the insurer on all claims and dismissed the policyholder's breach of contract and statutory bad faith causes of action. The court declared the policy void and entered judgment in favor of the insurer pursuant to Pennsylvania's Fraud Act (18 Pa.C.S. § 4117). The court will be scheduling a hearing to assess the insurer's damages pursuant to the statute which include reasonable investigation expenses, costs of suit and attorney's fees.
On June 11, 2008 Bill Krekstein and Melanie Bork won summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania on behalf of the defendant landlord where the Plaintiff claimed negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress after learning of his roommate's death in a fire from which the Plaintiff escaped.
Our subrogation practice group resolved a Westfield Insurance recovery matter for $950,000. The subrogation trial took place over two weeks in August 2006. Then our clients appealed their own $370,000 favorable jury award; obtained relief from the large but limited damage award; and then survived an appeal by defendant to the Ohio Supreme Court. This combination of trial skills, legal acumen, and appellate savvy resulted in a sizable 93% recovery for our clients.
John Clark and Erin Nulty obtained a favorable decision from the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirming the trial court's judgment that the insurer had no duty to defend and indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy for claims brought against the insured in Worker's Compensation Court.
Bill Krekstein and Mark Fisher were successful in dismissing various portions of a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Most significant was the Court's holding that alleged violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act and Unfair Claims Settlement Practices regulations irrelevant to a determination of a statutory bad faith claim under 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8371.
Bill Krekstein and Melanie Bork secured summary judgment on causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved interpretation of policy coverage for loss of business income claimed by a commercial landlord after a fire at the tenant's place of business.
Mark Fischer obtained a defense verdict by successfully showing that the damage to the property was the result of long term deterioration to the Plaintiff's roof and unrelated to any windstorm, and therefore not covered under the Plaintiff's named-peril policy. The case related to alleged windstorm and water damage to the insured's property, a barber shop. The suit alleged claims for breach of contract and bad faith under 42 Pa.C.S.A. s 8371, with Plaintiff claiming damages of $10,000 plus costs.
Rob Runyon secured an important judgment for Westfield Insurance after a bifurcated bench trial in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs, Westfield commercial insureds, commenced litigation against the company seeking over $170,000.00 in additional benefits on a commercial package policy after a substantial fire at their winery. After both the liability and then the damages portion of the trial were completed in phases, pursuant to a novel approach to case management by the court as suggested by NLdH, the Court entered a verdict for the Plaintiffs on only two items, for a total recovery of $9,794.00, only 6% of the damages sought by the Plaintiff policyholders.
In Smith v. Allstate, a bad faith claim arising out of auto theft, the Eastern District disposed of the bad faith claim, breach of fiduciary duty claim, claim for violations of the Unfair Insurance Practices Act and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law on a motion to dismiss filed by Bob Horst, Rob Runyon and Melanie Bork.
Dirk Pastorick secured summary judgment in favor of a roofing contractor for claims of negligent supervision. Although the injured subcontractor sustained life threatening injuries when he fell off a three story building, the court held, as a matter of law, that no duty was owed under the circumstances.
In a New Jersey case, Dirk Pastorick recently secured the dismissal of E&O claims against an insurance broker by successfully arguing that an Affidavit of Merit had not been timely submitted.
Dirk Pastorick obtained a favorable result for Century in Cook v. Marlton Discounts. The underlying product liability matter arose out of fairly serious burns and complete hair loss sustained after plaintiff used a hair straightening product. We represented the retail store in which the product was purchased. A dismissal was granted pursuant to the New Jersey Product Liability Act after submitting an affidavit identifying the manufacturer of the product in question. The case was resolved for our clients in a very early stage of litigation with minimal costs incurred.
On February 1, 2008, Bill Krekstein and Melanie Bork secured summary judgment on causes of action for breach of contract and bad faith in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case involved interpretation of policy coverage for loss of business income claimed by a commercial landlord after a fire at the tenant's place of business.
Craig Cohen and Erin Nulty secured a directed verdict in a bad faith action venued in Pennsylvania. After a five day bench trial, which was the culmination of almost ten years of contentious litigation, NLdH successfully defended bad faith allegations brought against a prominent national insurer concerning its business practices, its direct repair program, and its litigation tactics.
Scott Rybny, in his first federal court bench trial, obtained a judgement for the defense, resulting in a total win for Westfield.
Dirk Pastorick, a partner in the Surplus Lines: London Market Practice, obtained a favorable jury verdict in a liability action venued in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Faced with a contentious opposing counsel, a sympathetic elderly plaintiff in the early stages of Alzheimer's Disease, and an uncooperative insured who was closely related to the plaintiff, Dirk was able to secure a unanimous verdict from the jury by challenging the extent of plaintiff's alleged injury, the credibility of family member witnesses, and the frivolous nature of the suit.
John Clark of our Cherry Hill office recently obtained a favorable Order dismissing a surplus lines carrier in a case concerning a policy reformation issue. The plaintiff attempted to reform a homeowner's policy to include workers' compensation benefits for an employee injured on the insured's premises. Mr. Clark removed the matter from a workers' compensation venue and filed an Order to Show Cause in Superior Court, arguing that reformation was inappropriate as the policy excluded coverage for workers' compensation benefits. The Court agreed and entered summary judgment in the insurer's favor.
John Clark and Erin Nulty successfully achieved dismissal of a breach of contract and bad faith suit brought by a condominium association in Delaware against a surplus lines carrier based on the denial of a claim for property damage and liability coverage under a commercial property policy. Through a motion to dismiss based on the suit limitations provision of the policy and the applicable statute of limitations for first-party bad faith claims, NLdH successfully refuted plaintiff's argument that the insurer had waived the limitations defenses through its behavior. Plaintiff's contentions that the property policy provided for liability coverage were similarly refuted.
In a Pennsylvania case involving breach of contract for the cancellation of a policy by a premium finance company and bad faith allegations, John Clark successfully argued to have both the surplus lines insurer and coverholder dismissed from the action during arbitration.
In a New Jersey case, John Clark and Erin Nulty obtained a Protective Order requiring the plaintiffs to use the procedures outlined in the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, or Hague Convention, to take the depositions of representatives of a London surplus lines insurer.
Tim Stalker and the NLdH Reinsurance Group recently obtained a favorable arbitration result for a cedent. The issues involved late notice, coordination of errors and omissions coverage with reinsurance coverage, and an allegation by the reinsurer that the failure to reform a policy after an accident was underwriting bad faith versus bad faith claim handling. Going into arbitration, the most that the reinsurer offered was $400,000 on a "take it or leave it" basis, against a billing of $2,168,000. The Panel awarded our client the full $2,168,000 plus interest at 8% from mid-2004, plus arbitration hearing costs.
Bill Krekstein, a partner in the Coverage Practice, secured victory in a jury trial on behalf of the Insurance Placement Facility of Pennsylvania (the "Fair Plan"). The case was tried in Philadelphia and the plaintiff was the congregation of a Baptist church. The hard fought litigation battle resulted in a unanimous jury verdict in favor of the insurer.
Scott Rybny represented the Farmers' FACT companies on a policyholder's appeal from a Judgment on the Pleadings on Farmers' behalf. The areas of the law at issue on appeal included the applicable statute of limitations in a bad faith case, as well as a plaintiff/policyholder's ability to apply an "estoppel" theory to extend the homeowner’s policy one year Suit Limitation provision.
The firm presented to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCIAA), at a Workshop on Class Action Litigation. The Workshop was borne of the Rand Insurance Class Action Study, which is of national significance and given great weight by courts, academics, and corporations alike. Mike Nelson presented at the workshop with Larry Mirel—the former Insurance Commissioner of the District of Columbia—on the topic of “Emerging Issues - Meeting the Challenges: Class Action Developments/Trends.”
Dan de Luca & Ken Levine secured a plaintiff's verdict in a property subrogation case they tried in Cleveland, Ohio. No settlement offers were ever made in this very difficult liability case, which was tried over the course of more than a week. The verdict was $369,000 and post-trial practice is underway. Through their impressive trial skills, Dan and Ken were able to obtain a favorable verdict in a case that appeared to offer little or no chance of success.
Craig Cohen, a partner in the Complex Litigation Practice, successfully defended a $24 million lawsuit in North Carolina based on allegations that a nationally prominent insurer had defamed and tortiously steered customers away from the plaintiff’s business. Mr. Cohen scored another victory in North Carolina and secured a defense verdict in a similar unfair trade practices and tortious interference lawsuit brought by another party.
NLdH’s attorneys have also been active in federal class action reform efforts, which culminated in amendments to the federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. NLdH lawyers testified in Washington about the shortcomings of modern day class action law. We conferred with members of Congress and staff members of the House Judiciary Committee about class action reform legislation. We also worked with pro-business organizations such as U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Lawyers for Civil Justice and the Washington Legal Foundation on these initiatives.
Mike Nelson and Craig Cohen represented a national insurer in a prominent case involving a nationwide antitrust insurance class action based on the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The $20 billion matter filed against multiple insurers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida gained national prominence for the scope of its claims. NLdH was instrumental in the defense of the case and the ultimately successful motion to dismiss filed by the insurers.
The Complex Litigation Practice has successfully obtained dismissals of diminished value class actions in Tennessee and a Canadian-based class action regarding vehicle evaluations, as well as the denial of class certification in a Texas class action involving insurance estimating business practices.