Edwin Michael Kosik

The case concerns a physician's lawsuit against his disability insurers after they initially approved and then later terminated benefits under a policy issued in Pennsylvania, following injuries from a 2002 car accident that allegedly prevented him from practicing as a nephrologist. The defendants moved to dismiss counts alleging breach of contract and bad faith, as well as to strike portions of the complaint as irrelevant or scandalous. The court denied the motion in full, holding that Pennsylvania law recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts and that the complaint adequately stated claims under the relevant statutes and precedents without needing external evidence at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryhealthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a dispute over the terms of a disability insurance policy purchased in 1980, specifically whether benefits continued for the plaintiff's lifetime after he became totally disabled at age 54 or terminated at age 65. The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer stopped payments in 2007, while the insurer sought summary judgment and a declaratory judgment that no further benefits were due. The court struck the plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for summary judgment and related filings. It then analyzed the policy's plain language, which limited payments after the insured's 65th birthday if benefits had already been paid for 12 or more months, and rejected arguments for oral modification due to the policy's integration clause, granting the insurer's motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Robin Parmelee, who is serving a 105- to 210-year sentence following his 2001 Pennsylvania convictions on numerous counts of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, incest, and related offenses against his three minor daughters. Parmelee raised eight grounds for relief, primarily alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, improper consolidation of charges, and denial of access to children and youth services records. The court denied the petition in full, finding that several claims were unexhausted or procedurally defaulted, while the exhausted claims failed on the merits because the state courts' rejection of them was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The opinion reviewed the trial evidence, including victim testimony and medical findings, and concluded that no constitutional violations warranted relief.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over the handling of a $100,000 life insurance policy on a minor child who died in a house fire, where the insurer MetLife established separate accounts for the proceeds payable to the divorced parents as rival beneficiaries following the ex-husband's challenge to the mother's claim. The plaintiff mother sued MetLife for bad faith, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and related claims, alleging improper delay in distribution and requirement of a broad release before paying out the funds. The court exercised diversity jurisdiction and analyzed Pennsylvania law on insurance bad faith under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371, the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and common-law contract principles, distinguishing the facts from prior precedent like Hayes v. Harleysville due to the competing beneficiary claims and pending investigation. It concluded that MetLife's conduct in holding the funds pending resolution of the dispute and requiring releases was reasonable under the circumstances.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Timothy Scanlin's motion to remand a garnishment action against Utica First Insurance Company back to Pennsylvania state court. The underlying dispute arose from a personal injury lawsuit in which Scanlin obtained a $350,000 judgment against Robert Brown, who then assigned his potential bad-faith claims against his homeowner's insurer Utica to Scanlin in exchange for an agreement not to enforce the judgment. Utica removed the garnishment proceeding to federal court on diversity grounds, prompting Scanlin to argue that a prior state court order retaining jurisdiction over the judgment and related matters required remand or abstention. The court denied the motion, holding that the garnishment action constituted a distinct civil action separate from the original tort suit because Utica was not a party to it, making removal proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). It further reasoned that the state court's jurisdictional language did not override federal removal rights and that no abstention doctrines applied given the absence of duplicative proceedings or uncertain state-law issues.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Pocono International Raceway suing Pocono Mountain Speedway and its principal for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, and Pennsylvania law, based on the defendant's use of names and marks similar to the plaintiff's registered 708 design mark and unregistered textual marks "Pocono Raceway" and "Pocono" in the motor vehicle racing entertainment business. After a one-day bench trial limited to liability issues, the court issued detailed findings of fact on the marks' strength, similarity in appearance and sound, actual consumer confusion, advertising expenditures, shared marketing channels, and lack of intent to deceive. The court determined that the 708 logo mark was dissimilar with no likelihood of confusion and denied related dilution claims, while noting secondary meaning, similarity, and actual confusion for the textual marks.

business & regulatory

This case involved a former manager terminated by Insalaco’s Market for gross negligence who, as a union member, grieved his discharge through arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. After the arbitrator ruled for the employer, the plaintiff sued to vacate the award, alleging it did not draw its essence from the contract and lacked evidentiary support. The court had previously dismissed the union from the case for failure to state a claim of breach of the duty of fair representation. On the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that without a viable hybrid Section 301/duty of fair representation claim, the plaintiff lacked standing and legal basis to challenge the arbitration award against the employer alone. It therefore granted summary judgment under Rule 56, finding no genuine issue of material fact and closing the case.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a train engineer suing his employer, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for shoulder and neck injuries sustained when his train collided with a truck stuck on the tracks in snowy conditions. The plaintiff alleged that Conrail failed to warn of the obstruction, provide a crashworthy train, properly train him on crash survival, and comply with internal load limits in cold weather. The court granted Conrail's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Conrail had violated FELA. The core reasoning was that Conrail lacked advance notice of the truck on the tracks, the train's load complied with internal policies, and there was no evidence supporting the other claims of negligence.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In this case, five former employees of Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurance Company sued the company after their termination in 1991, claiming sex and age discrimination under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (other claims such as breach of contract and ERISA violations were withdrawn). The plaintiffs alleged their terminations were based on age or sex, while the defendant maintained the positions were eliminated as part of a neutral structural reorganization. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence under any of the applicable discrimination frameworks—pure discrimination, mixed motives, pretext, or disparate impact—to rebut the company's documented explanation or create a triable issue.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Eisenfelder v. United States, a federal prisoner who had pled guilty to marijuana manufacture and possession sought to vacate his 63-month sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming the court should have applied a sentencing guidelines reduction for his minor or minimal role in the offense. The petitioner had not raised this argument at sentencing or on direct appeal to the Third Circuit, which had already upheld the sentence including the attribution of 149 marijuana plants. The district court denied the motion, holding that the claim was barred by procedural default under the cause-and-prejudice standard from United States v. Frady and United States v. Essig, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate external cause for the omission or actual prejudice from the alleged error.

criminal lawprocedure

In Ball v. U.S. Parole Commission, a federal prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Parole Commission's revocation of his parole, claiming he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at the hearing in violation of due process under Morrissey v. Brewer. The district court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation for a new revocation hearing, determining that the petitioner, through counsel, had voluntarily waived those rights by declining to request or subpoena witnesses on parole forms and in correspondence prior to the hearing. The court also found no showing of actual prejudice from the absence of cross-examination, given the reliable evidence in police reports supporting the violations, and therefore denied the petition and entered judgment for the respondent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned challenges by contractor associations and a telephone company and union to Pennsylvania's Prevailing Wage Act and related regulations, which mandate that contractors on public works projects pay locally prevailing wages and fringe benefits determined by the state, with limits on crediting excess benefit contributions toward wages. Plaintiffs argued that these rules were preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the Act, its regulations, and a 1992 Declaratory Order interpreting benefit credits are invalid because they are preempted by ERISA. The core reasoning was that the state scheme regulates employee benefit plans in a manner that conflicts with ERISA's comprehensive federal framework, including by dictating how contributions to such plans must be structured and credited.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Thomas Albrechta, who was hired as Chief of Police for the Borough of White Haven under a contract that included a probationary period and referenced the Police Tenure Act, but was terminated by a newly elected council just before probation ended without notice or a hearing. Albrechta sued the Borough, claiming violations of due process regarding property and liberty interests, free speech and association rights, reputational stigma from the dismissal, and a related state law claim under Pennsylvania Local Agency Law. The court denied the Borough's motion for summary judgment on all counts, determining that genuine issues existed as to whether Albrechta possessed a protected property interest under state statutes and that his other constitutional and state claims were sufficiently supported to proceed to trial.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a products liability claim by the widow of a farmer killed when his tractor rolled over, pinning him underneath; she sued the manufacturer under Pennsylvania's strict liability law (Restatement §402A) on a 'crashworthiness' theory, alleging the 1967 tractor was defectively designed because it lacked rollover protection structures (ROPS). The jury found that the plaintiff had not proven the tractor was defective without ROPS, and the court denied her motion for a new trial. The court reasoned that defense counsel's closing argument properly focused on judging the product as sold rather than hypothetical safer alternatives, that evidence of the decedent's conduct was admissible because crashworthiness claims require assessing all contributing causes, and that the court's neutral response to the jury's question about 1967 rollover requirements was appropriate given the exclusion of industry-standard evidence. The opinion notes that other claims were withdrawn before trial and addresses only the briefed issues from the new-trial motion.

torts & liability

This case involved minority shareholders of First National Bank of Palmerton suing the bank, its holding company, and individual officers and directors under the federal RICO statute. The plaintiffs alleged a long-running scheme to defraud them by diverting bank funds through excessive salaries and consulting fees, paying minimal or no dividends, concealing outside acquisition offers, and effecting a 1990 reorganization and squeeze-out merger at a below-book-value price, all facilitated by mail and wire communications. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. It held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish the essential elements of a RICO conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), including the existence of predicate acts forming a pattern of racketeering activity with the requisite knowledge and agreement.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over an oral agreement for the sale of real property, with the plaintiff alleging improper conduct by multiple defendants including the Ehrlich defendants (sellers) and Hess defendants (subsequent purchasers), and seeking damages, punitive damages, rescission, specific performance, and other relief. The court addressed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It denied dismissal of the punitive damages claims and certain counts seeking monetary damages, finding that the allegations could potentially support relief, but granted dismissal of requests for specific performance, rescission, or a constructive trust against both sets of defendants because the oral real estate contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. The court allowed claims for damages to proceed, as oral contracts may still support monetary recovery even if specific performance is unavailable, and noted the withdrawal of attorney’s fees requests.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a civil action under the False Claims Act brought by the United States against Joseph A. Nardone after his criminal conviction for making false statements and claims to FEMA regarding storm damage to a sanitary authority facility following Hurricane Gloria. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, entering judgment for $187,173 in damages, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim and third-party complaint seeking indemnification. The decision relied on collateral estoppel from the prior criminal guilty verdict under 31 U.S.C. § 3731(d), which prevented the defendant from contesting the essential elements of the offenses, while the government separately established damages through an affidavit that went uncontroverted. The court also held that indemnification is unavailable as a matter of law in False Claims Act cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Mariel Cuban refugee serving time in federal prison who filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a detainer placed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The district court adopted the magistrate's report recommending dismissal after the petitioner filed no objections and no extension was requested. The court reasoned that an INS detainer alone does not place a person in INS custody, so a § 2241 petition cannot be used to challenge it without actual custody by the agency.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved a Pennsylvania fabric dying company suing the CEO and general counsel of a clothing manufacturer for allegedly disclosing confidential details of a planned asset acquisition, refusing to cooperate with auditors, and terminating the deal to drive the plaintiff into bankruptcy and acquire its assets at a lower price. The plaintiff asserted claims including business tort, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1964. Defendant Kagan moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(7), 12(b)(6), and 12(e), arguing improper joinder, failure to state a claim, and lack of particularity in fraud allegations. The court denied the motion in full, finding that Coated Sales was not a required party, that the fraud claims were pled with sufficient particularity, and that the RICO count adequately alleged a pattern of racketeering activity through multiple uses of the mails and wires in furtherance of the scheme.

business & regulatorycriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a citizens' suit under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act in which the plaintiff conservation association alleged that the defendant waste treatment company was violating the terms of its NPDES permit by discharging pollutants into Dresser Run Creek and Tobyhanna Creek, harming the health, recreational, and aesthetic interests of the association's members who use the waterways. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing, failure to state a claim based on wholly past violations, and abstention due to a parallel state administrative proceeding, or alternatively for a stay pending evaluation of new treatment equipment. The court denied the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff had standing because its members' recreational use of the creeks was concretely affected and that the complaint contained good-faith allegations of ongoing or intermittent violations sufficient under Gwaltney; it also rejected abstention and a stay. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add claims regarding discharges into adjacent wetlands but denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, directing that discovery proceed on outstanding factual issues.

environmentprocedurefederal power