Case Alerts below: Date: October 20, 2006 Citation: Womer v. Hilliker, No. 25 MAP 2005, (Pa. Oct. 18, 2006). Summary: Professional Liability / Certificate of Merit In construing the Certificate of Merit Rule filing requirement, the Supreme Court held that trial courts must strictly construe the requirement to file a Certificate of Merit within 60 days of the Complaint. The court rejected a "substantial compliance" excuse raised by plaintiff even though plaintiff had served an expert report on the defendant prior to the expiration of the 60-day deadline. Date: May 09, 2006 Citation: Blood v. Old Guard Ins. Co., 894 A.2d 795 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc). Summary: In a UM/UIM coverage dispute, the Superior Court en banc held that an insurer is obligated to obtain new sign UM/UIM down forms when an existing policyholder requests lower liability limits. In 1986, the policyholder applied for coverage and chose liability limits of $500,000.00 and UM/UIM limits of $35,000.00. In 2000, the policyholder requested the policy be modified and requested reduced liability limits of $300,000.00. Two months later, an insured suffered serious injuires in a motor vehicle accident and demanded the policy's UIM limits. The Superior COurt found that, in 2000, the existing policyholder had not elected lower UM/UIM limits nor had been presented that option by the insurer. Therefore, the Superior Court en banc, by Judge Panella, concluded "the statutory presumption of UIM policy limits equivalent to the bodily injury liability limits was in effect. Old Guard, as the drafter of the document, was in a position to make it clear whether the Bloods were choosing a lower UIM coverage limit. Having failed to protect itself, this Court is not empowered to reform the contract to reflect Old Guard's contention." Date: May 09, 2006 Citation: Strine v. Pennsylvania MCARE Fund, 894 A.2d 733 (Pa. 2006). Summary: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held a bath ordered by a physician to treat a resident's skin met the definition of "medical services" and triggered the MCARE Fund's coverage obligations to a nursing home. Under the MCARE Act, "professional liability" includes liability "resulting from the furnishing of medical services which were or should have been provided." 40 P.S. § 1301.103. Date: May 09, 2006 Citation: Basile v. H & R Block, 894 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2006). Summary: The Superior Court held that class action defendant waived its right to appeal the trial court's order certifying the case as a class action by not challenging that order in an earlier cross-appeal. This case underscores the importance of filing cross-appeals against adverse trial court decisions at the earliest opportunity, especially in the class action setting. Date: May 09, 2006 Citation: Donegal Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baumhammers, 893 A.2d 797 (Pa.Super.2006)(en banc). Summary: One insurer is obligated to defend negligence claims for conduct that gave rise to and allowed criminal conduct, as the conduct that lead to a shooting spree met that insurer's definition of "occurrence." A second insurer had no duty to defend because its policy excluded injuries from the criminal or intentional acts of the insured. The court then applied the "cause of loss" theory to conclude that the insured's independent act of shooting six different victims (at different locations) constituted six "occurrences" under the triggered policy. Date: April 10, 2006 Citation: Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 889 A.2d 550 (Pa. 2005). Summary: Pennsylvania Supreme Court states that State Insurance Department overstepped its legislative mandate in requiring mandatory binding arbitration for UM and UIM disputes.