$______ RECOVERY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ? OB/GYN NEGLIGENCE ? PLAINTIFF'SDECEDENT DIES FROM EXCESSIVE BLEEDING FOLLOWING C-SECTION ? FAILURE TOPROPERLY TREAT POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE ? WRONGFUL DEATH OF 36-YEAROLDFEMALE.

• Pages: 2-3

Summaries with Trial Analysis

$46,900,000 VERDICT – INSURANCE MALPRACTICE – BAD FAITH – INSURANCE

COMPANY SEEKS DECLARATIVE JUDGMENT ON POLICIES – COUNTERCLAIMS OF BAD

FAITH AND BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Allegheny County, PA

In this action, an insurance company sought

declaratory judgment regarding its responsibilities

to pay a client. The client pursued counterclaims

for breach of contract. The matter was resolved

with a jury verdict.

The defendant, MSA LLC (formerly Mine Safety Appli-

ances Company), is a subsidiary of MSA Safety Incor-

porated, a maker of safety equipment for a broad

range of markets, including the oil, gas and petro-

chemical industry, the fire service, the construction in-

dustry, mining and the military. The defendant’s core

products include self-contained breathing apparatus,

fixed gas and flame detection systems, portable gas

detection instruments, industrial head protection

products, fire and rescue helmets and fall protection

devices. The defendant is headquartered north of

Pittsburgh in Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania, and

has manufacturing operations in the United States,

Europe,AsiaandLatinAmerica,withmorethan40

international locations.

The plaintiff, North River Insurance Company, is an in-

surance company based in Morristown, New Jersey

and a subsidiary of Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. In

2010, the plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Common

Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against MSA

LLC. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment con-

cerning its responsibilities under three additional poli-

cies. MSA LLC asserted counterclaims against North

River for breaches of contract for failures to pay on

certain policies. The defendant further asserted

claims for Bad Faith claims handling.

On October 6, 2016, the court found that plaintiff

breached the three contracts at issue in the case.

The court further found that plaintiff violated common

law standards of good faith and fair dealing in han-

dling defendant’s claims. The court entered a verdict

in favor of MSA LLC and against North River for $10.9

million, the full amount of the contractual damages

at issue in the case. The court also issued a verdict

finding that North River had acted in bad faith.

In December 2016 and January 2017, the Pennsylva-

nia state court heard evidence regarding the extent

of damages awardable as a result of the statutory

bad faith claim. On February 9, 2017, the court

awarded $46.9 million in damages, including $30

million in punitive damages, $11.8 million in attorneys’

fees and $5.1 million in pre-judgment interest.

REFERENCE

North River Insurance Company vs. MSA LLC. 02-14-

17.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Robert A. Nicholas, Brian T.

Himmel and Anne E. Rollins of Reed Smith LLP in

Pittsburgh, PA.

COMMENTARY

Since 2009, in various states and federal courts, the parties have

been engaged in insurance coverage litigation covering multiple

policies. Additional cases are still pending, including a trial with

North River and other insurance carriers that is scheduled to begin

on April 24, 2017 in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.

This decision is believed to be the largest award ever issued in

Pennsylvania for a case of this nature. The jury award is still sub-

ject to post-trial review, including any future appeals.

$6,000,000 RECOVERY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – OB/GYN NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF’S

DECEDENT DIES FROM EXCESSIVE BLEEDING FOLLOWING C-SECTION – FAILURE TO

PROPERLY TREAT POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE – WRONGFUL DEATH OF 36-YEAR-

OLD FEMALE.

Montgomery County, PA

The decedent’s estate brought this wrongful death

action against the defendant ob/gyn, all attending

doctors and the staff of the defendant hospital

alleging that they failed to properly recognize and

treat the decedent’s life-threatening postpartum

hemorrhage following the delivery of the

decedent’s child via C-section. The defendants

denied all allegations of negligence and

maintained that the decedent’s death was

unavoidable due to a rare childbirth complication.

2

Volume 35, Issue 6, May 2017

Reproduction in any form without the express permission of the publisher is strictly prohibited by law.

Subscribe Now