Changes in Accident Litigation in Pennsylvania
Many changes in recent years have affected how, which, and for how much an accident can be litigated in PA. The following are just a few changes, already passed or pending as of this writing.
Changes Already Affecting Accident Litigation
In 2005, the PA Supreme Court changed the way uninsured and under-insured motorist cases were to be litigated with their decision in the case of Insurance Federation of PA v. Koken. Insurance companies are now permitted to write policies that require either formal trial or arbitration with regard to claims caused by under/uninsured motorists, whereas before, arbitration was the only option. As a result, if you are injured by an under/uninsured driver, you can still make a claim from your own insurance company for compensation, but your carrier can now eliminate the option for arbitration and compel you to go through a jury trial or to a judge to pursue your claim. Though this may sound bad for plaintiffs, many attorneys believe that this method may yield more favorable settlements to the injured, as juries are more likely to side with an individual over a faceless insurance company.
More changes are likely coming, due to several proposals for tort reform championed by several Pennsylvania legislators. These proposals, first made in 2007, include the following:
The Pennsylvania Fair Share Act
Under Pennsylvania law, if the actions of two or more people caused injury to another, those people are held liable both jointly and severally, or separately with regards to damages owed to the injured person. Degree of fault does not play into the equation both are liable for the full amount of the judgment. The intent was to guarantee payment of the judgment to the plaintiff, and to leave it up to the contributing defendants to work out any debates regarding who owed what percent of the judgment.
In 2002, a law called The Fair Share Act was signed by the then-governor. It stated that individual defendants were liable for payment ONLY of their proportion of the judgment, not the full judgment, save in a few cases where one defendant was found to be liable for 60% or more the accident and therefore could still be made to pay the full amount. An exception was also made if one party was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
However, the Act was later struck down following a challenge by the PA General Assembly’s minority leader, on the grounds that the procedure used to pass the Act was unconstitutional, because the Act’s various provisions did not relate to a single subject, as is required in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately agreed, but the majority members of the General Assembly countered this decision by quickly putting together a new Fair Share Act. This version didn’t mix in any other legislation and was passed by the Senate in 2005 and the House of Representatives in 2006. Ultimately, though, then-new Governor Rendell vetoed the Act, now known as Senate Bill 435.
Legislators put together yet another version of the Act in 2007 and is still laboring to get it passed.
Among the various tort reform measures being considered are the following, many of which are already in effect in other states:
- A constitutional amendment allowing the General Assembly to establish caps on attorney fees in liability cases
- Establishment of a progressive statutory framework for limitations on attorney fees in liability cases
- A constitutional amendment to allow the General Assembly to establish caps on non-economic damages in liability cases
- Establishment of new limitations on the recovery of punitive damages
- Restriction of liability with respect to innocent sellers, particularly where product misuse is found to be involved
- An amendment to the comparative negligence statute that would make each defendant found negligent or strictly liable for an injury to a plaintiff responsible for only his or her share of the total damage compensation for an injured plaintiff
- A requirement that the plaintiff filing a liability action includes a certificate of merit as prescribed by court rules, including a statement that the plaintiff suffers from a serious injury
Whether any or all of these proposed reforms will become law remains to be seen. Their ultimate effects on civil accident litigation in Pennsylvania is also questionable, but no doubt will lead to changes that affect the situations under which plaintiffs can sue, the methods of litigation that will be followed, who will be responsible for settlement payments, and amounts that may be awarded.
Article provided courtesy of the Philadelphia accident lawyers of Howard, Brenner, & Nass P.C., 215-546-8200.
Copyright © 2011 LexisNexis. All rights reserved.