Attorneys Mark Merlini and Mike Joyce of MOODK’s Philadelphia Office obtain a verdict in favor of their physician client following a jury trial in Berks County. Plaintiffs claimed that their 96-year-old decedent died from congestive heart failure after being transferred from a hospital to a local nursing facility for rehabilitation, where MOODK’s client was her attending physician. The Plaintiffs’ decedent had been on Lasix for her congestive heart failure prior to her admission to the hospital for a kidney injury at which time her Lasix was stopped. The hospital never restarted her Lasix upon transfer to the nursing home and MOODK’s client determined it was not appropriate to restart Lasix upon her admission to the nursing home due to her still recovering from her kidney injury and continued dehydration, while also having severe aortic stenosis. After five days in the nursing home and showing no symptoms of congestive heart failure, the decedent passed away quietly in her sleep. Plaintiffs sued the hospital, nursing home and MOODK’s client claiming negligence. The hospital and nursing home settled Plaintiffs’ claims but MOODK’s client refused to settle. The jury found in favor of MOODK’s client finding that no negligence had been committed by the physician.

MOODK Attorneys Patricia Fecile-Moreland and Michael Joyce of the Philadelphia Office secured summary judgment for our clients on a defamation and tortious interference case. MOODK’s clients had entered into a business agreement for the purchase of a company located in Philadelphia which did heating and air conditioning repairs, among other things. The relationship between the parties soured after acts of alleged vandalism occurred on the property of the client’s business. Plaintiff eventually left the company and then accused MOODK’s client of telling Plaintiff’s friends and potential business relationships that he had been the one to vandalize the company, steal clients, and commit burglary. Plaintiff claimed that these alleged defamatory comments also caused an associate of Plaintiff’s to stop doing business with him. Following discovery, MOODK attorneys moved for summary judgment on behalf of their client arguing that Plaintiff had failed to produce evidence that could support his claims. The Court agreed determining that the only evidence that had been produced by Plaintiff was inadmissible hearsay and could not support the claim. The Court granted the Motion and dismissed all claims against MOODK’s client and entered judgment in their favor.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment obtained by attorneys Noreen Kemether, Esquire and Ana Ciobanescu, Esquire of MOODK’s Philadelphia office on behalf of a retail insurance broker client. The plaintiff alleged that MOODK’s client was negligent in failing to obtain the requested existing structure coverage on a warehouse complex the plaintiff was renovating, and as a result, was underinsured for a subsequent fire that destroyed the property. The plaintiff had requested $2.6 million in existing structure coverage in addition to a builder’s risk insurance policy. MOODK’s client was able to obtain quotes from only one of three carriers solicited, but the carrier would not provide the full $2.6 million requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff decided to purchase the offered coverage despite this, which was not enough to cover the subsequent property damage. MOODK’s attorneys argued that their client did not breach any duty owed as it took reasonable steps to procure the requested coverage and the policy obtained was not void or materially defective., which the trial court agreed with. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Superior Court which affirmed the trial court’s decision, dismissing the claims against MOODK’s client.

J. Mark Pecci, II, Esquire and Andrew J. Milisits, Esquire of MOODK’s Philadelphia Office won a series of motions to obtain dismissal of all claims against a subcontractor in a multi-party complex construction defect matter in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. First, the duo won a Motion precluding the Plaintiffs’ from offering expert evidence regarding any purported defective workmanship. Next, the Court granted their Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of claims against the client, with prejudice, which argued that Plaintiffs’ claims were legally insufficient and could not be substantiated with the requisite evidence needed to allow the case to proceed to trial.