Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C.

 – Firm Profile

Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C. Law Firm Logo

Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C. 

Size of Organization: 25
Web Site:

Telephone: 215-893-9300
Fax: 215-893-8719

Profile Visibility
#478 in weekly profile views out of 280,161 total law firms Overall

Icon for Featured Peer Review Rated LawyerIcon for Featured Peer Review Rated Lawyer at this firm

Administrative LawCommercial Litigation
Corporate LawCreditors Rights
Government RelationsInsurance Defense
Insurance LawLabor and Employment Law
Mergers and AcquisitionsMunicipal and Zoning Law
Premises LiabilityReal Estate Law
Tax LawTrusts and Estates, Wills and Probate
               Learn More


Martindale-Hubbell has augmented a firm's provided information with third-party sourced data to present a more comprehensive overview of the firm's expertise:
Peer Review Ratings

Total number of Peer Review Rated lawyers of Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C.: 15

Documents by Fineman Krekstein & Harris, P.C. on

Subscribe to this feed

Carrier’s Investigation and Denial Of UIM Benefits Following Payment of First Party Medical Claim Not Bad Faith; Neither Length of Investigation Alone Nor Disputing Causation After Not Making it an Issue in Original Claim Create Bad Faith Per Se (Middle District)
November 17, 2014
In Shaffer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., plaintiff and his wife brought a bad faith claim against their carrier after being denied UIM coverage, following payment of medical coverage on a first party claim. The claim resulted from a motor vehicle accident in which the other driver was...

Excess Insurer Had No Duty to Post Appeal Bond and Could Not Be Liable in Bad Faith for Failing to Do So; Court Observes that Proof of Bad Faith is More Difficult Where Law at Issue On Coverage is Unsettled (Philadelphia Federal)
November 17, 2014
In the most recent decision in Charter Oak Ins. Co. v. Maglio Fresh Food, which has been discussed at length in previous postings in 2013 and 2014, the Court addressed claims against the excess insurer after holding a short non-jury trial. It concluded that under the unique circumstances of that...

MSP Private Action Allowed to Advance Prior to Resolution of Underlying Obligation
November 17, 2014
In Nawas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128365 (E.D.Mich. 2014), the Eastern District of Michigan allowed Plaintiff to recover double damages under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act prior to a judicial determination that the insurer was obligated to pay the claim.


Complete a Client Review

Have you recently worked with this firm? Share your experience as a Client of this firm and complete a Client Review to help others make an informed choice when hiring legal counsel.

Compare this Firm

Compare this firm to other firms in your Favorites.

Add to Favorites

As a registered user of Connected, you can add law firms to your list of Favorites. You can securely add comments and compare the law firms in your Favorites.