IN THIS ISSUE

PENNSYLVANIA FAIR SHARE ACT UPDATE
Gregory R. Riley, Esquire and James N. Zeris, Esquire

WHEN EMPLOYEES DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES: WHEN INTERNAL COMPANY RULES ARE NOT FOLLOWED

Erika L. Omundson, Esquire and Richard Gash, Esquire

THE IMPLICATIONS OF COOPER V. SCHOFFSTALL: DISCLOSURE OF A NONPARTY EXPERT WITNESS' FINANCES TO DEMONSTRATE BIAS

Samantha Kane, Esquire and Jonathan M. Field, Esquire

VALIDITY OF NON-ASSIGNMENT CLAUSES IN PENNSYLVANIA

Nixon T. Kannah, Esquire and Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire

REMITTITUR OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS
Susy O. Cho, Esq. and David S. Cohen, Esquire

PA ACT 109 AND ITS PRACTICAL EFFECTS: THE DELINQUENT PARENT IN CHILD SUPPORT AND PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION
David A. Miller, Esquire and Steve Ledva, Jr., Esquire

SERIAL RACE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMANT TO BE PROSECUTED FOR INSURANCE FRAUD
Susan R. Engle, Esquire and Jeffrey C. Sotland, Esquire

FEEDBACK REQUESTED

Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers is seeking feedback from our clients as to what you would like to see in the upcoming issues of the newsletter. We are always interested in ways to improve our offerings to clients and more effectively communicate with you. Send comments to: jmintzer@defensecounsel.com or jsotland@defensecounsel.com

PENNSYLVANIA FAIR SHARE ACT UPDATE

By Gregory R. Riley, Esquire and James N. Zeris, Esquire

On June 19, 2002, then-Pennsylvania Governor Mark Schweiker signed into law Act 57 of 2002 entitled the "Fair Share Act." The Fair Share Act provided sweeping changes to the Commonwealth's rules regarding joint tortfeasor liability and was obviously a favorable piece of legislation for the defense bar. Prior to the passage of the Fair Share Act, Pennsylvania had in place a system of joint and several liability with respect to joint tortfeasors. Under the old system, if a defendant was found at least 1% liable to a plaintiff, that defendant could potentially be liable for paying the entire judgment to the plaintiff if other defendants were uninsured or otherwise insolvent.

The Fair Share Act was not law for long before it was challenged on constitutional grounds. Pennsylvania House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese and Mike Deon, Democratic Whip of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, filed suit in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court asserting that Act 57 of 2002 was unconstitutional under Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. It is important to clarify that the Commonwealth Court held that Act 57 of 2002, NOT the Fair Share Act itself, was unconstitutional. The Court did not determine the constitutionality of either the DNA Act or the Fair Share Act on their face, and thus the many who casually state that the Fair Share Act was held to be unconstitutional are technically incorrect. The Commonwealth Court's Order was entered on July 26, 2005, and the Attorney General of Pennsylvania filed a Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on July 29, 2005.

Click here to continue.


	VOLUME 17 November 2006