Sean X. Kelly of our New Jersey office successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of Atlantic County in a long-running, putative class action law suit which challenged the constitutionality under the Fourth Amendment of the county’s policy of strip-searching incoming detainees to its jail.  We successfully argued that Atlantic City’s strip search policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizure.  This extensive litigation included the filing of an amicus brief on behalf of Atlantic County in a related and successful appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), in which the constitutionality of such policies was established.  Prior to Florence, thirty years of case law had held the contrary, that the routine strip-search of non-indictable pre-trial detainees violated the Constitution.

Benjamin J. Tursi of our Philadelphia Office successfully prevailed before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, affirming summary judgment in a psychiatric malpractice case. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought suit against a hospital and its attending physician alleging that the failure to admit the husband to voluntary inpatient mental health care treatment was grossly negligent and resulted in a purported suicide and homicide attempt against the wife by the husband. We successfully argued that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act and that plaintiffs had failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find gross negligence.

The plaintiffs in American Iron v Glover Agency, et al asserted claims of malpractice and breach of contract against our client, a commercial insurance broker. The claim arose from the alleged failure of the broker to obtain a business interruption endorsement on a commercial fire policy.

When the plaintiffs failed to serve an affidavit of merit as required under New Jersey law, Sean X. Kelly of our New Jersey office successfully moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed the matter to the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff argued that the affidavit of merit requirement did not apply to a breach of contract claim, as opposed to a malpractice claim. Plaintiffs also argued that the common knowledge doctrine applied as an exception to the AOM requirement.

And affirming the dismissal, the Appellate Division accepted the defense arguments that the nature of the claim was one of professional negligence, regardless of the superficial label of breach of contract. Moreover, the court recognized the inherent complexities in understanding the excess and surplus marketplace thereby rejecting the common knowledge argument.

Mark Merlini of the Philadelphia office presented a lecture to a group of attorneys and claims professionals regarding the impact of Pennsylvania’s MCARE Act on medical malpractice litigation and the role of the Commonwealth’s MCARE Fund which provides statutory excess coverage to physicians in Pennsylvania. The Act, passed in 2002, changed the landscape of medical malpractice litigation in Pennsylvania and along with changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring claims to be filed in the venue where the alleged negligence occurred and requiring Certificates of Merit, has led to a nearly 50% decrease in medical malpractice claims filed annually.