Daniel Bentz of Marks O’Neill’s Pittsburgh office was successful in obtaining a grant of their Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of their client in a professional liability matter filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, PA.  The Plaintiff made claims of fraudulent misrepresentation under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law against the client, a real estate agent, for failure to disclose alleged previously-existing defects in the home prior to closing.  After obtaining favorable testimony through discovery, the Court agreed there was no evidence to suggest that the real estate agent had any knowledge of the defects, or was reckless as to her lack of knowledge as to the condition of the home and accordingly dismissed our client from the case. 

Daniel Bentz of Marks O’Neill’s Pittsburgh office, recently obtained a defense verdict, on behalf of a specialized seat manufacturer, following an eight day jury trial in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff, a Class I railroad, filed suit against defendant seat manufacturer for injuries to the railroad’s employees. During trial, plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act based upon state claims of products liability and negligent design. Following a jury trial and post-trial motions, the Court entered a full and final judgment in favor of defendant, seat manufacturer.

J. Mark Pecci, II of Marks, O’Neill’s Philadelphia office obtained the dismissal of their client from a case where Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of our client’s construction work during the replacement of City of Philadelphia water and sewer lines. Plaintiff alleged our client was responsible for creating the hazardous condition that resulted in her alleged injuries. Through aggressive defense and investigation, Mark and Erica established our client had no role in creating the hazardous condition and we were dismissed from the case.

Marks O’Neill’s Westchester County office was successful in obtaining Summary Judgment in a NYCAL asbestos matter on behalf of our client, a boiler manufacturer.  This matter involved a living lung cancer claimant who claimed to have worked on our client’s boilers during the time he worked as an oil service man.  We moved for Summary Judgment, arguing that the testimony against the client amounted to inadmissible hearsay which could not be relied upon under any exception to the hearsay rule.  Judge Manuel Mendez granted the motion, dismissing plaintiff’s claims and any/all cross-claims against our client.