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 lawyers have been litigating cases for decades, and know the courtrooms from Philadelphia’s City Hall to the highest appellate courts in the region.  Our experience ranges from the emergency of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction on days’ notice, through the complete panoply of complex and heavy litigation with motion practice and in-depth discovery, and finally to trials before judges and juries.  We have represented clients in every appellate court in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in state and federal trial courts, in bankruptcy courts and in private arbitration forums.  And, knowing the reality that the most common resolution to a case is settlement, we are well versed in negotiation and mediation strategy and tactics.

Among other areas of law and practice, representative examples of which are detailed throughout our Practice Groups, our litigation experience covers:

  • Appellate Advocacy
     
  • Arbitration
     
  • Commercial Litigation/Business Disputes
     
  • Complex Civil Litigation
     
  • Construction Law
     
  • Consumer Lending
     
  • Creditors’ Rights
     
  • Employment Law
     
  • Insurance
     
  • Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
     
  • Mediation and Settlement Conferences
     
  • Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA)
     
  • Products Liability
     
  • Real Estate
     
  • Toxic Torts
     
  • Trade Secrets
     
  • Trucking

 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Motion To Dismiss Not Suitable Means to Address Whether Insurer's Position Was Fairly Debatable, In This Action, And Was Therefore Denied (New Jersey Federal)
, April 17, 2015
In Zodda v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, the insured pleaded bad faith, among other claims, for denial of benefits on a disability policy. The insured brought claims against multiple insurers, alleging an elaborate scheme in marketing the disability insurance at issue, and in denying...

Court Dismisses Boilerplate Bad Faith Claim With Prejudice, As No Conceivable Basis To Cure By Amendment (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 25, 2015
In Williams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., the plaintiffs (an injured driver and two passengers in her car) brought an uninsured motorist claim against the injured driver’s insurer. The court found that the putative count for violating the UIM law was actually pleaded as a claim for breach of the...

Alleging That Insurer Maliciously Audited And Re-Adjusted Premiums Did State A Claim For Breach Of The Duty Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing, Even Where Claims Handling Not Involved; Attorneys’ Fees Not Permitted; Punitive Damages Could Be Pursued (New Jersey Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In LM Ins. Corp v. All-Ply Roofing Co. the insured alleged, among other things, that the insurer audited its premiums, and reclassified its employees, as revenge for underreporting income, and that this stated a bad faith claim. The insurer argued there are no recognizable bad faith claims in New...

Bad Faith Claim Dismissed Due To Lack Of Factual Support To Make Out A Plausible Claim; Putative Discovery Violations During Litigation Cannot Constitute Basis For Insurance Bad Faith Claim (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In Morrissey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., plaintiffs’ home was damaged by a fire, making it uninhabitable. Their homeowners’ insurance policy provided coverage limits of $220,000 for the house, $165,000 for personal property, and the actual value of the loss of use sustained....

Bad Faith Claim Stated For Conduct Occurring After Insurance Contract Was Entered, The Court Having Rejected The Argument That The Claim Was In The Nature Of Pre-Contract False Marketing (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In Jacoby v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, it was alleged that the insured purchased a life insurance policy that required an initial series of premium payments on the policy, but thereafter the premiums would be paid from dividends on the policy without the need for separate premium...

Court Conducts Close Analysis Of Whether Bad Faith Claim Should Be Remanded, And Finds That Remand Is Proper (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In Plunkett v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, a federal district court was once again faced with a motion to remand a removed bad faith action, where the insured made representations that the case was not seeking in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. Specifically, the...

Court Dismisses Bad Faith Claim To The Extent It Sought Emotional Damages Under The Bad Faith Statute, Finding The Pennsylvania Statute Prescribes Specific Remedies (Middle District)
, March 05, 2015
In Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., plaintiffs brought suit alleging a claim of breach of insurance contract and a statutory bad faith claim. Plaintiff purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from the insurer, after which a fire rendered the home uninhabitable. The firefighters at...

Court Refuses To Universalize Bad Faith From Simple Denial Of Coverage In The Absence Of Specific Evidence Of Bad Faith (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In Easy Corner, Inc. v. State National Insurance Company, the court made clear the significance of a bad faith’s plaintiff’s need to prove something more than negligence, or that an insurer was simply wrong on coverage. In that case, the court granted summary judgment to the insurer...

New Jersey Appellate Division Reverses Trial Court’s Dismissal Of Insured’s Bad Faith Claim Due To Failure To Comply With Procedural Requirements (New Jersey Appellate Division)
, March 05, 2015
In Citizens United Reciprocal Exch. v. Espinoza, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court reversed and remanded a trial court’s dismissal of an insured’s counterclaim against its insurer alleging bad faith, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and other claims in a...

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Issues Opinion On Gist Of The Action Doctrine
, March 05, 2015
In Bruno v. Erie Insurance Company, the Supreme Court affirmed the existence of the “gist of the action” doctrine. Rather than viewing this as a recent theory, initiated with the Superior Court’s 1992 Bash v. Bell Telephone Company of PA decision, the Supreme Court concluded that...

Plaintiff’s Uim Bad Faith Claim Narrowly Survives Summary Judgment Because Of Muddled Record As To What Caused Delays (Middle District)
, March 05, 2015
In Clemens v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, plaintiff brought a UIM bad faith case, with the chief issues focusing on the 39 month time period between the claim being asserted and the filing of suit. There were three areas at issue on cross motions for summary judgment as to this...

UIM Bad Faith Plaintiff Adequately Pleads Claim Where Carrier Switches Positions On Basis For Denial (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In Lyman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, plaintiffs brought breach of contract and bad faith claims against their UIM insurer. The carrier sought to dismiss the claims, asserting they were mere boilerplate and could not stand under Twombly. The court disagreed.

Where No Coverage Is Due An Insurer Has Good Cause To Deny Coverage, And Thus A Bad Faith Claim Cannot Stand (Philadelphia Federal)
, March 05, 2015
In Guglielmelli v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Insurance Company, the insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims seeking damages for bodily injury under an automobile insurance policy. The policy incorporated a “sign-down form,” which reduced the uninsured/underinsured...