Amicus Briefs

This case raises the question of whether a jury should hear evidence of industry or governmental standards in design defect product liability cases. The Superior Court excluded this evidence even though the Tincher holding adopted negligence-based risk-utility analyses for design defect product liability cases.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PENNSYLVANIA COALITION FOR CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM, AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURNCE ASSOCIATION, PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBER OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTUERS ASSOCIATION, INSURANCE FEDERATION OF PENNSYLVANIA @ LEADING AGE PA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS.

UPDATED

Issue: Should Pennsylvania recognize the tort of aiding and abetting fraud?

If the cause of action of aiding and abetting fraud is recognized, must a party have actual knowledge of the underlying fraud?

This case was filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. PCCJR urges the court to recognize US Supreme Court precedent and reject the concept of jurisdiction by virtue of registering to do business in Pennsylvania.

At issue:

Unfair competition and Puntive damage ratio calculations.

At issue:

1.Whether the Supreme Court should rule that “cause of death”, as it appears in MCARE’s statute of limitations (40 P.S. § 1303.513(d) (“Statute of Repose”)), refers to medical cause of death, and not “conduct leading to death” (or legal cause of death) as held by the Superior Court.

2. Whether the statute of limitations in a wrongful death or survival act claim may only be tolled under section 513(d) of MCARE (40 P.S. § 1303.513(d) (“Statute of Repose”)), where a plaintiff proves that the defendant against whom the claims are asserted (and not a third party) affirmatively misrepresented or fraudulently concealed decedent’s cause of death?

The brief requests a reargument before an en banc panel of the Superior Court to overturn a decision of a Superior Court panel. The Court’s opinion in Spencer v Johnson concluded that the Fair Share Act’s provision apportioning damages based on the percentage of a defendant’s fault does not apply unless the plaintiff in the case is contributorily negligent. The court wrongly concluded that the Fair Share Act does not apply if the plaintiff has zero negligence.