MOODK Philadelphia attorneys, J. Mark Pecci, II and Casey G. McCurdy, obtained summary judgment for their client, an asbestos abatement subcontractor, in a tragic construction accident which resulted in significant injuries to Plaintiff’s left knee and leg. At the time of the injury, Plaintiff was employed by MOODK’s client, which was hired by a demolition contractor to perform asbestos abatement work at the jobsite. Plaintiff alleged that the demolition contractor left piles of debris around the jobsite which caused him to trip, fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiff further alleged that he had previously complained of the hazardous conditions created by the demolition contractor prior to the accident.

MOODK’s client was ultimately joined to the matter by the demolition contractor which sought contractual defense, contribution and indemnity from the client based upon the indemnity provision of the subcontract agreement. Following discovery, Attorneys Pecci, II and McCurdy moved for summary judgment arguing that the demolition contractor’s claims were barred by the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, because Plaintiff was the client’s employee at the time of his alleged injury and the indemnity provision at issue lacked the necessary language waiving such protection. Specifically, the MOODK attorneys argued that the indemnification provision at issue was too broad and needed to contain express language indicating that its client would be held liable in indemnification for injuries to its own employees caused by the negligence of the demolition contractor. The attorneys argued that because there was no such express language waiving their client’s Workers’ Compensation immunity, the demolition contractor’s claims were barred. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the attorneys’ reasoning and dismissed all claims against their client, with prejudice.

Laverne L. Tucker of MOODK’s Maryland Office obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against a therapist client who was considered a mandatory reporter of child abuse under Maryland Law. Laverne successfully argued that the client was immune from any civil liability in connection with her good faith reporting. The Court dismissed all claims against the client the day before jury trial was scheduled to begin.

J. Mark Pecci, II and Andrew J. Milisits of MOODK’s Philadelphia Office obtained dismissal of nuisance and trespass claims brought against a client in a case involving water runoff. In filing suit, Plaintiff sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. Prior to dismissal, the attorneys filed Preliminary Objections seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for lack of factual and legal specificity. The case was ultimately dismissed voluntarily prior to oral argument without any monetary contribution from the client.

Noreen Kemether and Ana Ciobanescu of MOODK’s Philadelphia office obtained summary judgment on behalf of their clients on a claim alleging professional malpractice in an insurance brokerage case. Plaintiff alleged that the client failed to procure existing structure coverage on an older, vacant warehouse undergoing extensive renovation, in the amount specifically requested by the Plaintiff. MOODK’s client worked with a wholesale broker to solicit quotes, and of several carriers solicited, only one carrier offered to quote the renovation project, and only offered existing structure coverage up to the purchase price, not on the alleged appraised value of the existing structure as requested by the Plaintiff. Several months into the extensive renovation project, the structure was destroyed in a fire and Plaintiff alleged the amount of existing structure coverage provided did not cover the value of the loss. During the course of litigation, the attorneys discovered that Plaintiff had actually shopped around for coverage with at least one other insurance agency, was offered a quote for existing structure coverage in the amount requested and declined the coverage due to the higher cost. The attorneys moved for summary judgment arguing that MOODK’s client had fulfilled their duty to Plaintiff and the Court agreed. The Court found that while the client was unsuccessful in obtaining the requested coverage, the steps taken to solicit the requested coverage were not inadequate or insufficient and did not breach any duty owed.