Results – Our Cases Change the Law – In the Pa. Superior Court

Cases That Change The Law – A Record of Results That Help Accident Victims & Protect Rights

Other law firms follow the leaders. We are The Leaders. Attorney Daniel J. Siegel’s precedent-setting Workers’ Compensation and personal injury cases have assured or increased the benefits of more injured persons than any law firm in Pennsylvania. Here are some of our Pennsylvania Superior Court victories:

Jones v. Foods on First III Inc., 345 A.3d 231 (Pa.Super. 2025)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that, for claims under Philadelphia’s anti-discrimination law – the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (PFPO) – a plaintiff does not have to first file with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR) to pursue PFPO claims in court if the plaintiff has already filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) about the same conduct.

Coryell v. Morris/Domino’s Pizza, 330 A.3d 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that: (1) A trial court’s denial of a fact-dependent pretrial motion for summary judgment is not reviewable on appeal when the issue was subsequently resolved at trial; the proper question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); (2) The determination of whether a relationship between parties triggers vicarious liability is a mixed question of law and fact, subject to review on an issue-by-issue basis depending on whether it is more heavily weighted toward fact or law; and, (3) The franchise agreement and operating standards between a franchisor and its franchisee established that the franchisor had sufficient control over the franchisee’s day-to-day operations to create a master-servant relationship, rendering the franchisor vicariously liable for the negligence of the franchisee’s delivery driver.

Jordan v. Lynde, 330 A.3d 817 (Pa.Super. 2024)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that it was error to rule upon a Motion for Summary Judgment without giving the plaintiff 30 days to respond as required by Pa.R.C.P. 1035.3(a). A party may not join in a Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby giving the plaintiff fewer than 30 days to respond.

Liberty Mut. Grp., Inc. v. 700 Pharm., LLC, 270 A.3d 537 (Pa.Super. 2022)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that insurance companies seeking relief under the Workers’ Compensation Act must follow the procedures under the Act. In addition, claims for fraud, absent proof, cannot proceed.

Sawyers v. Davis, 222 A.3d 1 (Pa.Super. 2019)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the absence of or a defect in a return of service does not necessarily divest a court of jurisdiction over a defendant who was properly served, and it was error to dismiss a Complaint on that basis.

Ferguson v. Morton, 84 A.3d 715 (Pa.Super. 2012)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the trial court erred in presuming that the jury’s verdict improperly included punitive damages. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the summation so prejudiced the jury as to require a new trial.

Barnes v. Keller, 62 A.3d 382 (Pa.Super. 2012)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held, in this uninsured motorist claim, the Court held that a jetter attached to a cargo van could be a “motor vehicle” under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, and that genuine issues of fact existed that precluded the entry of summary judgment. The Court also disapproved of the trial judge’s failure to disclose that his spouse was employed as an attorney by the law firm representing the appellee.

Lewis v. CRC Industries, Inc., 7 A.3d 841 (Pa.Super. 2010)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered a new trial in a products liability action involving the application of New Jersey substantive law, holding that the law prohibits a court from introducing to the jury the principle of assumption of risk as a defense to a plaintiff’s strict product liability claim stemming from a used-in-a-workplace setting. The Court further held that when a jury charge as a whole is inadequate, unclear, or has a tendency to mislead or confuse, rather than clarify a material issue, that error is a sufficient basis for the award of a new trial.

Smith v. Pulcinella, 656 A.2d 494 (Pa.Super. 1995)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court extended to general negligence cases the malpractice doctrine that, where the conduct of two or more tortfeasors causes an injury, and the damages cannot be reasonably apportioned among the negligent parties, any one of the tortfeasors may be held responsible for the entire verdict if that party’s negligence was a substantial contributing factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

Curran v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, 643 A.2d 687 (Pa.Super. 1994)

This Pennsylvania Superior Court en banc decision analyzed when a verdict may be reduced under the Comparative Negligence Act, and also held that the failure to request the correction of an inconsistent jury verdict constitutes a waiver of any objection to the verdict.

Insurance companies know that we will fight – and win – cases, no matter how hard the battle. That’s why they often settle with us for greater amounts to avoid the appeal.

To see how we can help you, call (610) 446-3457 or click here to send us an email.