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
#1,448 in weekly profile views out of 279,784 total law firms Overall

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

Insurance Defense
               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.: 14

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

Subscribe to this feed

Court Rules That Attorney Client Privilege Does Not Apply Where Attorney Acts As A Claims Investigator; But Rejects The Insured's "Theory Of Wholesale Waiver" Where Insurer Denies Acting In Bad Faith In Answer And Where Legal Opinion Affects Adjuster's Mind, In Absence Of Advice Of Counsel Defense; And General Admonition That Each Redacted Item Must Be Analyzed Individually By Counsel (Philadelphia Federal)
September 15, 2014
In Henriquez-Disla v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the insured brought bad faith and fraud claims against its insurers. There were two discovery issues: (1) whether certain communications in the case involving a lawyer were subject to the attorney client privilege or whether...

Victory On Coverage Issues, On Ambiguous Basis, Did Not Preclude Bad Faith Against Primary And Excess Insurers Concerning Duty To Defend Or Settle; Conduct Of Defense Counsel In Deciding Not To Request Special Interrogatories Remained An Issue; And Insured¿s Expert Testimony Was Excluded On Issue Of Actual Conflict In Appointing Defense Counsel, But All Experts Could Otherwise Testify (Philadelphia Federal)
September 15, 2014
In Charter Oak Insurance Company v. Maglio Fresh Foods, a primary and excess carrier sought declaratory judgments that they owed the insured no coverage duty under their policies. The insured counterclaimed for bad faith. The parties agreed to let the court decided the coverage issues before...

Where Policy Exclusion Was Clear, And Insureds Offered No Actual Facts To Meet Their High Burden To Prove That Insurer’s Position Lacked A Reasonable Basis, Summary Judgment Was Granted To The Insurer On Bad Faith Claim (Philadelphia Federal)
September 15, 2014
In Leitner v. Allstate Insurance Company, the insureds alleged bad faith on the basis of improper denial of their claim and/or unreasonable delay in the investigation process. The court cited the bad faith statute and the standards imposed by case law, emphasizing the “high bar” an...


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.