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:

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...

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...

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,...

Even Though Court Dismissed Breach of Contract Action on Untimeliness Grounds, It Permitted Insureds to Proceed on Bad Faith Action (Middle District)
, October 18, 2013
In Condi v. State Farm Ins. Co., the insureds’ home suffered water damage. The insureds alleged that there was a storm, and a tree fell blocking a gutter which then acted to funnel water into the home cause damage. The insurer took the position that the water infiltration was caused by...

Bad Faith Claim Adequately Pleaded Where, Among Other Things, Insured Alleged That The Carrier Utilized An Improper Expert And Failed To Retain Legal Counsel To Evaluate The Claim, As Well As Delay In Settlement. Court Also Permitted Claim for Negligence in Undervaluing Necessary Policy Limits to Proceed (Western District)
, October 16, 2013
In Allied Dental Group v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., the plaintiff purchase a business insurance policy that provided coverage for business personal property and improvements and betterments, and coverage for the actual loss of business income sustained during a period of restoration. A...

Case Remanded Where Compensatory Damages Sought Were A Little Over $11,000 and All Arguments That Case Could Exceed $75,000 Were Found Speculative and Collecting Removal Cases (Philadelphia Federal)
, October 16, 2013
In Mazza v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, plaintiff sought a little over $11,000 in damages in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. Plaintiff’s ad damnum clause stated that plaintiff was not seeking in excess of $50,000. The carrier removed the case to federal court on the...

Investigations by the Carrier That May Have Lead To Different Results Had Certain Events Occurred Which Did Not In Fact Occur Was Not the Basis for a Bad Faith UI, Claim (Western District)
, October 16, 2013
In Deibler v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the insured brought a statutory bad faith claim against his UIM insurer. The non-insured motorist had asserted the insured was at fault. The carrier investigated that claim by reviewing the police record and attempted to speak with the plaintiff,...

No Bad Faith Where Carrier Held Coverage Decision in Abeyance Pending Outcome of Criminal Proceedings; No Right to Attorney's Fees When Insured Proceeds Pro Se (Middle District)
, October 16, 2013
In Atwood v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, the plaintiff purchased a homeowner’s policy. The DEA had knocked down the door of plaintiff’s home, and left it unsecured. As the court described it, while plaintiff was “on the lam”, with the home still unsecured, the...

Rule 42 Motion To Sever and Stay Bad Faith Claim In UIM Case Denied By Federal District Court (Western District)
, October 16, 2013
In Cooper v. Metlife Auto & Home, the insured sought UIM coverage from his carrier, after the tortfeasor’s carrier paid its $50,000 limit. The UIM carrier refused to settle and the insured brought breach of contract and bad faith claims against the carrier in Mercer County, which was...

Where Dispute over Origin of Loss Was Not Unreasonable, Bad Faith Claim Dismissed On Summary Judgment (Philadelphia Federal)
, October 16, 2013
In Helm v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., the case involved a claim against a homeowner’s policy for water loss. The insureds claim the loss arose from a single leak, originating above the kitchen. The carrier sent an investigator and also requested a sworn proof of loss be...

Insurer’s Motion to Dismiss on Choice-Of-Law Grounds Denied Where Delaware Had No Actual Interest in Application of Its Law, Which Lacked Statutory Bad Faith Claim Similar to Pennsylvania (Middle District)
, October 15, 2013
In Davis v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., plaintiff brought suit against the defendant-insurer alleging statutory bad faith for defendant-insurer’s handling of her UIM claim. Plaintiff was a citizen of Delaware at the time she purchased the policy and at the time of the underlying accident, and at all...

Ninth Circuit Overrules Haro Decision; District Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because Administrative Options Were Not Exhausted Prior To Suit, Attorneys “Entities” Under MSP Statute
, October 03, 2013
The Ninth Circuit has overruled the Arizona District Court ruling in Haro finding the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit because the class action litigants and individual plaintiff had not exhausted their administrative remedies prior to filing suit. In May of...

Court Grants Declaratory Judgment in Insurer’s Favor, Enforcing Claims Made Policy’s $100,000 Sublimit for Insured’s Illegal Actions (Philadelphia Federal)
, September 26, 2013
In Camico Mut. Ins. Co., v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP, the insurer sought a declaratory judgment relieving it of its duty to provide a defense to the insured under a claims made policy, asserting that a $100,000 policy sublimit applied to the claims against the insured. The insured filed...