Superior Court Upholds Attorney Fees Based on Lawyer's 'Frivolous Appeals'
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a ruling granting attorney fees to State Farm Insurance due to the insured's lawyer's "vexatious" conduct in conducting "frivolous appeals" in an insurance dispute.
July 02, 2020 at 12:01 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld a ruling granting attorney fees to State Farm Insurance due to the insured's lawyer's "vexatious" conduct in conducting "frivolous appeals" in an insurance dispute.
In Wallace v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, a three-judge panel consisting of Judges John Bender, Anne Lazarus and Eugene Strassburger affirmed a Philadelphia court's arbitration award in favor of State Farm, including attorney fees, in plaintiff Ruth Wallace's coverage dispute with the insurer.
The court rejected Wallace's argument that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees without conducting an evidentiary hearing over attempts by her attorney, Elliott Tolan, to have the arbitrator in the case removed.
"In the instant matter, this court sua sponte imposed sanctions upon attorney Tolan during Wallace's initial appeal 'based upon his obdurate and vexatious prosecution of frivolous appeals[,] despite his full knowledge that Wallace never preserved an objection to arbitrator [Marc] Rickles' participation,'" Lazarus wrote in the court's June 30 memorandum opinion.
The court also rejected Wallace's assertion that the record was unclear as to the facts.
"State Farm submitted a motion for sanctions, attorneys' fees, and costs on January 11, 2019, appended with detailed time records and supporting affidavits from its attorneys stating that their rates were 'fair, reasonable[,] and in accordance with rates commonly charged by other lawyers in this locale with [similar] experience and education for similar services,'" Lazarus said.
"In calculating fees and costs in accordance with this court's order," she added, "the trial court reviewed State Farm's comprehensive submissions and Wallace's response and, in its discretion, struck nine separate time entries, reducing the requested amount of counsel fees occasioned by Wallace's prior frivolous appeal from $10,506 to $5,967, 'to eliminate any excessive or duplicative charges for the research and preparation required to address the issues in the pending appeal.'"
Under the circumstances, Lazarus said that the award of fees was appropriate.
"We find that, where this court previously determined attorney Tolan's conduct was vexatious and obdurate such that attorneys' fees were warranted under Rule 2744, ordered the trial court to calculate the appropriate attorneys' fees, and the fee award is supported by record evidence, the trial court did not palpably abuse its discretion in awarding such fees without an evidentiary hearing," Lazarus said.
Tolan did not return a call seeking comment.
State Farm is represented by Lise Luborsky of Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg, who did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Rise of AI-Generated Deepfakes: A New Cybersecurity Threat for Law Firms
- 2Litigation Leaders: Labaton’s Eric Belfi on Running Case Investigation, Analysis and Evaluation In-House
- 3Spoliation Sanctions
- 4At FDA, Flavored Vape Products Go Up In Smoke
- 5Arguing Class Actions: CAFA’s Local Controversy Exception
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250