Practice Areas & Industries: Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C.


Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Fineman Krekstein & Harris’s insurance practice involves representing insurers in a wide variety of matters.  The firm understands the need for insurers to receive a prompt and efficient risk management assessment, which forms the foundation of the strong relationship we have developed with the insurers that we represent.

Whether the matter is simple or complex, we strive to provide the carriers with thorough analysis to enable a quick resolution or adequate time to prepare a case for trial.  As a service to our clients, we have also created the Medicare Secondary Act Payer Blog.

Over the years we have represented carriers in the following specialized areas:

  • Agents and Brokers
  • Business Disparagement
  • Business Torts
  • Commercial Vehicles
  • Construction
  • Dram Shop
  • Employment
  • Errors and Omissions
  • Fraud
  • Garage Keeper’s Liability
  • Life, Health and Disability
  • Premises Liability
  • Products Liability
  • Professional Liability
  • Property Damage
  • Regulatory Affairs

Representative Matters

  • Won summary judgment on behalf of a car rental company in a personal injury action where the plaintiff alleged that he was struck by a vehicle owned by car rental company while crossing the street.  Plaintiff claimed the vehicle fled the scene following the accident.  The defense successfully argued that Plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by the car rental company since Plaintiff was not able to recall the license plate number nor any other identifying information. In addition, the defense provided information to show that the rental car alleged to have been involved in the accident had been returned to the rental car company thirty minutes prior to the accident. 
  • Represented a store owner in a personal injury case in which plaintiff alleged that she was struck in the head by an overhead metal gate as she attempted to leave the store.  Investigation revealed several inconsistencies regarding Plaintiff’s explanation of how the accident occurred.  The defense successfully argued that it was impossible for the metal gate to move on its own and a defense award was issued at a court mandated non-binding arbitration.  Plaintiff did not appeal the arbitration award.  
  • Represented the lessor of an electric burden carrier cart in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  The burden carrier cart struck a union worker who alleged that the cart was negligently maintained and that he suffered permanent and debilitating injuries as a result of the accident.  Utilizing a variety of liability and damages experts, the firm successfully reduced exposure and obtained a settlement well below plaintiff’s original $5 million demand.
  • Represented the manufacturer of an industrial disposable wiping material machine in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  Plaintiff alleged, in part, that he sustained severe burns and injuries across his body as a result of the machine’s defective design.  The firm was able to reduce potential exposure by demonstrating culpable conduct via a defendant and obtained a favorable settlement.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a leasing company sued as a result of a multiple fatality motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiffs alleged that the leasing company’s failure to maintain its own insurance policy on the vehicle made it responsible under a state statute requiring such companies to have insurance to pay for the damages caused by the driver of the vehicle.  The court agreed with the leasing company and ruled that noncompliance with the statute did not create a private right of action by the Plaintiffs.

Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Court Dismisses Bank’s Claim Against Title Insurer for Failure to State a Claim and Complaint Did Not Set Out Bad Faith and Did Not Set Out the Kind Of Claim that Could Allow for Bad Faith Even Where There Was No Coverage Obligation (Middle District)
, November 13, 2013
In Bank of Am., N.A. v. Martin, plaintiff brought suit against the insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith for its failure to pay plaintiff’s claim under its title insurance after an error was discovered in the title. The title in question was created when defendant landowners took...

District Court Reaffirms its Refusal to Find a Fiduciary Duty Between Surety and Policyholder (Western District)
, November 13, 2013
In Reginella Constr. Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., the District Court refused to reopen its judgment dismissing plaintiff’s fiduciary-in-fact, tortious interference, and bad faith claims.

Products-Completed Operations Hazard Extends Only to Work by General Contractor; Damage Caused by Subcontractor Not Covered, Precluding Bad Faith Claim for Denial (Western District)
, November 13, 2013
In Allegheny Design Mgmt. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., plaintiff, a general contractor, brought suit against its insurer after a scratch was discovered in the store-front glass at one of plaintiff’s project sites, and the insurer refused to cover the claim. The scratch was discovered...

Reversing on Breach of Contract Claims in the Insured’s Favor, Third Circuit Still Affirms Summary Judgment on Bad Faith Count for Failure to Meet Evidentiary Burden of Clear and Convincing Evidence, and that Suggestions from Expert Reports Alone are Not Sufficient to Establish Bad Faith Claim (Third Circuit)
, November 13, 2013
In U.S. Fire. Ins. Co. v. Kelman Bottles, the insured brought suit against its insurers for breach of contract after its claims for damages resulting from a glass melting furnace blow-up in its factory were denied. Defendant produces glass bottles, requiring it to store approximately 220 tons of...

Bad Faith Claim Time Barred by Two Year Statute of Limitations Despite Policy Statute of Limitations of Three Years; Time of Denial is Time when Statute Begins (Western District)
, November 08, 2013
In Sigal v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., plaintiff brought suit alleging breach of contract and bad faith for two separate denials in 2005 and 2010 of his disability claims. Plaintiff, a surgical opthamologist, purchased three disability policies with “Own Occupation” riders from the insurer...

Court Finds No Bad Faith Where Insurer Delayed Settlement Pending Expert Report on Causation (Blair County)
, November 08, 2013
In Rhodes v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., plaintiffs brought suit alleging the insurer had acted in bad faith by refusing to meet their settlement demand of $175,000 on their underinsured claim sooner than it did. To prove such a claim, the first prong of the bad faith statute (the insurer lacked a...

Court Holds "Extreme Delay" in Processing of Claim and Tender of Payment can Constitute Bad Faith under the Statute; Enters $2m Judgment against Insurer, including Punitive Damages and Attorneys' Fees (Lackawanna County)
, November 08, 2013
In Davis v. Fidelity Nat’l Ins. Co., plaintiffs brought suit against the insurer alleging breach of contract and bad faith for the insurer’s failure to settle its claim under a title insurance policy for five years. Plaintiffs owned a parcel of land on which they intended to build...

Insurer’s “Paid When Incurred” Disbursement of Funds Did Not Breach Contract; No Bad Faith (Philadelphia Federal)
, October 28, 2013
In Pellegrino v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., plaintiffs brought suit alleging the insurer’s practice of withholding funds for certain repairs as “paid when incurred” (PWI) was a breach of contract and constituted bad faith. Plaintiffs’ roof and siding were damaged in a...

Bad Faith Claims Alleging Delay in Investigation, Unreasonable Interpretation of Policy, and Lack of ALE Payment can Advance to Trial, Though Summary Judgment Granted on Claim Relating OT Aggregation and Depreciation on Personal Property (Philadelphia Federal)
, October 23, 2013
In Hudgins v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., plaintiff’s home was destroyed in a fire. An investigation of the cause of the fire took place, and plaintiff’s son was arrested and charged with arson. The insurer continued its investigation, but failed to make a decision as to...

Court Quashed Subpoena Directed to Attorney of Third Party as it Sought Information Irrelevant to the Carrier’s Claims Handling on an Irrelevant Contract, and Would Violate the Attorney Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine (New Jersey Federal)
, October 22, 2013
In Kull v. Arrowood Indemnity Company, the court addressed a motion to quash a subpoena issued in connection with an underlying case in federal district court in Ohio. At the time of the subpoena, the only litigation issue in Ohio was a bad faith insurance claim by an insured corporation against...

Court Refuses to Dismiss UIM Bad Faith Claim Where Even Facts Alleged from Which Bad Faith in Claims Handling and Delay in Settlement or Investigation May be Inferred from Allegations (Middle District)
, October 22, 2013
In Shaffer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the UIM insureds was injured, settled with the other driver and made a UIM claim against its carrier. The insureds alleged they were cooperative, provided all pertinent medical information promptly, and submitted to an examination under...

Coverage for Qui Tam Action Denied under “Prior or Pending Litigation” Exclusion; Insured Need Not be Served with Complaint for Exclusion to Apply (Philadelphia Commerce Court)
, October 22, 2013
In AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. ACE Am. Ins. Comp., plaintiff brought suit against the insurer alleging the insurer denied plaintiff’s professional liability claim in bad faith. Plaintiff provides pharmaceutical manufacturers with drug distribution services, clinical education, marketing, and...

No Bad Faith in Requesting Medical Records Where Carrier was Reasonable in Making Sure Records were Current and Insureds Delayed in Responding to Requests (Middle District)
, October 22, 2013
In Schlegel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the insured made a UIM claim against her carrier, form an accident in which she was seriously injured, and for which she received $100,000 from the tortfeasor. She was required to provide the carrier with all the details about the injury,...