Breach of Warranty

Commercial Litigation

Criminal Matter

Employment Litigation

Environmental Litigation

Landlord - Tenant

Medical Malpractice

Negligence - Personal Injury

Premises Liability

Product Liability

Property

AVIS v. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE CO.

Client:

Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company ("PMA").

Action:

Insurance coverage and bad faith. Plaintiffs claimed that PMA's denial of coverage in a third-party wrongful death and survival action was both erroneous and so baseless that it amounted to bad faith, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.

Below:

$2 million awarded in compensatory and punitive damages on cross-motions for summary judgment. PMA appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court denied PMA's Petition for Allowance of Appeal. 551 Pa. 702, 712 A.2d 285 (1998).

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented PMA on appeal.

NATHAN v. NATHAN

Client:

Glen Albert Nathan, D.C.

Action:

Fraud. Plaintiff claimed that her former husband fraudulently represented the value of certain marital assets during the negotiation of a property settlement agreement in a divorce proceeding.

Below:

$723,000 jury award in Plaintiff's favor, following which the trial court awarded $300,000 in punitive damages. Defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Settled during the pendency of the appeal.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent Defendant post trial and on appeal.

PLANET ROCK, INC. v. REGIS INSURANCE CO.

Client:

Alliance of American Insurers ("AAI"), as amicus curiae in support of Regis Insurance Company.

Action:

Insurance coverage. Plaintiff claimed that Regis' denial of coverage in a wrongful death and survival action was erroneous; Regis claimed that the loss was an excluded loss under the assault-and-battery exclusion contained in the policy.

Below:

$1 million awarded on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. That ruling was affirmed by the Tennessee Court of Appeals and Regis petitioned for permission to appeal in the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Appeal:

Petition denied. In its Brief of Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court, AAI argued that the Court of appeals misapplied the "concurrent-cause doctrine" under both the facts of the case and the terms of the policy.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented AAI in the Supreme Court.

SOCIETY HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. SOCIETY HILL ASSOCIATES

Client:

Society Hill Associates; AMS Associates, Inc.; Stien Built Homes; Aurthur M. Stein; and Albert L. Stein.

Action:

Construction. Plaintiff sought recovery for a variety of alleged defects in a complex of mixed condominium units and other amenities in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

Below:

The trial court rejected the majority of Plaintiff's construction defect claims and Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal by permission to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

Appeal:

Appeal dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Defendants on appeal.

SOCIETY HILL TOWERS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. RENDELL

Client:

Society Hill Towers Owners' Association.

Action:

Administrative. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants, in seeking and being awarded a $10 million Urban Action Development Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, failed to follow certain procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA"), the Housing and Community Development Act ("HCDA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Below:

The District Court entered summary judgment in Defendants' favor. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Appeal:

Appeal pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Plaintiffs as co-counsel in the District Court and on appeal.

ALBRIGHT v. ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL

Client:

St. Luke's Hospital.

Action:

Medical malpractice. The Plaintiffs' minor sustained permanent brain damage following an unsuccessful thoracotomy to close a patent ductus arteriosis. The minor also required a below-elbow amputation following a second operation to correct the condition.

Initial Decision:

$100 million jury award in Plaintiffs' favor, 90% of which was assigned to St. Luke's Hospital.

Appeal:

Post-trial motions are pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent St. Luke's Hospital post trial and on appeal.

ALDRIDGE v. EDMUNDS

Client:

Elizabeth H. Edmunds, M.D.

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiffs claimed that Dr. Edmunds' failure to diagnose congenital heart malformations (multiple ventricular septal defects and patent ductus arteriosus) led to their minor's failure-to-thrive, ultimately leading to her death.

Initial Decision:

Defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed. 718 A.2d 335 (Pa. Super. 1998). The Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs' Petition for Allowance of Appeal and affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Dr. Edmunds on appeal.

ALLEN v. HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Client:

Hahnemann University Hospital.

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiffs claimed that Hahnemann staff physician's failure to diagnose "compartment syndrome" in the Plaintiff-husband's foot following a traumatic crush injury ultimately required the partial amputation of his foot.

Initial Decision:

$9.9 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. Hahnemann filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief.

Appeal:

Settled after post-trial motions were filed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Hahnemann post trial.

COSTA v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

Client:

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ("CHOP").

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiffs claimed that CHOP physicians operated on the wrong side of their minor's head to remove a cyst that was causing seizures.

Initial Decision:

$2.5 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. CHOP filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief.

Appeal:

Plaintiffs released CHOP from all claims, with prejudice, after post-trial briefs were filed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented CHOP on post-trial motions.

DUPON v. HOLY REDEEMER HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER

Client:

Holy Redeemer Hospital & Medical Center.

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiffs claimed that the Plaintiff-wife suffered permanent and debilitating cognitive loss as a result of her physicians' decision not to return her to the operating room after it was discovered she was suffering a post-operative stroke following a carotid endarterectomy.

Initial Decision:

$15 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. Holy Redeemer appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Settled after briefing in the Superior Court.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent Defendant post trial and on appeal.

KNOBEL v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA

Client:

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ("CHOP") and Jean Hayward, M.D.

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiffs claimed that Dr. Hayward's failure to diagnose familial dysautonomia in their minor hindered his treatment course.

Initial Decision:

Nonsuit was entered in favor of Dr. Hayward and CHOP during trial; the jury found against a co-defendant and awarded $9.9 million. On post-trial motions, the trial court affirmed the entry of nonsuit in favor of Dr. Hayward and CHOP, but reversed itself on the basis for that ruling. Plaintiffs appealed from the entry of judgment in favor of Dr. Hayward and CHOP, and Dr. Hayward and CHOP cross-appealed from the trial court's reversal of the basis for its entry of nonsuit.

Appeal:

Affirmed on the basis of Dr. Hayward's and CHOP's cross-appeal - i.e., reversing the trial court's post-trial ruling and reinstating the initial ruling on nonsuit.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Dr. Hayward as co-counsel on appeal.

PEREZ v. HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

Client:

Hahnemann University Hospital.

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiff claimed that she suffered speech impairment and hearing loss as a result of nerve damage that occurred during an operation to remove her third molars (i.e., "wisdom teeth").

Initial Decision:

$2.6 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. Hahnemann appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed. The Supreme Court denied Hahnemann's Petition for Allowance of Appeal. 743 A.2d 921 (Pa. 1999).

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Hahnemann on appeal.

SANDERS v. JAMES C. GIUFFRE MEDICAL CENTER

Client:

James C. Giuffre Medical Center.

Action:

Medical malpractice. Plaintiffs claimed that a failed ligature performed during a splenectomy resulted in internal bleeding, renal failure, cardiac arrest, and anoxia. Plaintiffs claimed that the Giuffre Medical Center staff physicians should have diagnosed the internal bleeding at an earlier stage.

Initial Decision:

$5.4 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. The Giuffre Medical Center appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Reversed and remanded with instructions that judgment notwithstanding the verdict be entered in favor of Giuffre Medical Center on certain claims and that a new trial on damages be conducted.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent Defendant post trial and on appeal.

EISEMAN v. A.P. ORLEANS, INC.

Client:

A.P. Orleans, Inc.; F.P.A. Corporation; Marvin Orleans and Jeffrey Orleans, t/a Orleans Construction Company, a Partnership ("A.P. Orleans entities").

Action:

Negligence; construction site accident. Plaintiffs suffered severe injuries when a cinderblock wall collapsed on them. Plaintiffs claimed that the A.P. Orleans entities were liable as the general contractor for the project.

Below:

$5 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. The A.P. Orleans entities appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Settled after briefing in the Superior Court.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent Defendant post trial and on appeal.

SCHNATTERER v. PHILADELPHIA TRAMRAIL CO.

Client:

Philadelphia Tramrail Company and Philadelphia Tramrail Crane & Hoist Service Company.

Action:

Negligence. Plaintiff was severely injured when a load of steel "I" beams feel on him from an overhead bridge crane. Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants should have noticed certain dangerous conditions in the cranes during periodic inspections conducted pursuant to a maintenance contract.

Below:

Summary judgment entered in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Defendants on appeal.

SCHNATTERER v. PHILADELPHIA TRAMRAIL CO.

Client:

Philadelphia Tramrail Company and Philadelphia Tramrail Crane & Hoist Service Company.

Action:

Negligence. Plaintiff was severely injured when a load of steel "I" beams feel on him from an overhead bridge crane. Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants should have noticed certain dangerous conditions in the cranes during periodic inspections conducted pursuant to a maintenance contract.

Below:

Summary judgment entered in favor of Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Defendants on appeal.

BOGINSKY v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO.

Client:

Sears, Roebuck & Company.

Action:

Premises liability. Plaintiffs claimed that the uneven design of a loading dock area caused the forklift the Plaintiff-husband was operating to tip over, causing severe internal injuries.

Below:

$1.6 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. Sears appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Sears on appeal.

ALLGOOD v. FORD MOTOR CO.

Client:

Ford Motor Company and Gene Evans Ford, Inc.

Action:

Product liability. The Plaintiff-wife sustained catastrophic injuries when the 1997 Ford Explorer she was driving rolled over. Plaintiffs claim that the Explorer is defective because it is unstable and susceptible to rollover accidents.

Below:

Summary judgment entered in favor of Gene Evans Ford, the dealership that sold the vehicle The District Court entered final judgment in favor of Gene Evans Ford under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Ford on appeal.

BLUM v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

Client:

Pennsylvania Defense Institute ("PDI"), as amicus curiae in support of Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiffs claim that the Plaintiff-wife's ingestion of the drug Bendectin during pregnancy caused their minor's clubfeet.

Below:

$19.2 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. Merrell Dow appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, which reversed and remanded with instructions that judgment notwithstanding the verdict be entered in Merrell Dow's favor. 705 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Super. 1997). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review of the Superior Court's decision. 735 A.2d 1267 (Pa. 1999).

Appeal:

Appeal pending. In its Brief of Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court, PDI: (a) urged the Court to retain the "general-acceptance test" for assessing the admissibility of expert opinion testimony announced in Frye v. United States; (b) underscored the importance of the trial court's role as the evidentiary gatekeeper; and (c) explained the limited value that data derived from animal studies provide in assessing human toxicology.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represents PDI in the Supreme Court.

COLVILLE v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP.

Client:

Crown Equipment Corporation and Omnilift, Inc.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff sustained crush injuries to his foot when the standup forklift he was operating collided with a fixed object. Plaintiff claims the forklift is defective because it lacks a guard on the operator's compartment, which he claims would have prevented the injury.

Below:

$3.5 million verdict in Plaintiffs' favor. Defendants appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Appeal pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland and William Conroy represent Crown on appeal.

FEENEY v. GOLD MEDAL SPORTING GOODS, INC.

Client:

Gold Medal Sporting Goods, Inc.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff claimed that the swimming goggles he purchased at a Gold Medal Sporting Goods store fogged up while he was water skiing, causing him to hit a log floating in the water, which rendered him a paraplegic.

Below:

$11.8 million verdict in Plaintiff's favor. Gold Medal appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Reversed and remanded with instruction that the judgment entered against Gold Medal Sporting Goods be vacated.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent Defendant post trial and on appeal.

GRIEGO v. FORD MOTOR CO.

Client:

Ford Motor Company.

Action:

Product liability. Three individuals were killed and two others sustained serious injuries when the Ford E-350 Super Club Wagon in which they were riding rolled over. Plaintiffs claim that the E-350 van is defective for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is unstable and susceptible to rollover accidents.

Below:

The District Court: (a) precluded Plaintiffs' expert from testifying on the E-350's alleged instability under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); and (b) granted partial summary judgment in Ford's favor on that claim. The District Court entered final judgment in Ford's favor on that claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Appeal:

Appeal pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland and William Conroy represent Ford on appeal.

IN RE FORD MOTOR CO.

Client:

Ford Motor Company.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when the Bronco II he was driving rolled over. Plaintiff claimed that the vehicle was defective because it was unstable and susceptible to rollover accidents.

Below:

The District Court ordered Ford to produce documents it claimed were privileged by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Ford filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and a direct appeal under the collateral-order doctrine in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Appeal:

Reversed. The Third Circuit adopted Ford's arguments and held as a matter of first impression that an order compelling the production of privileged materials was immediately appealable as of right under the collateral-order doctrine. The Third Circuit further held that the documents Ford had been compelled to produce were in fact privileged and reversed the District Court.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Ford on appeal as co-counsel with John Thomas, Office of the General Counsel at Ford.

GRAHAM v. FUQUA INDUSTRIES, INC.

Client:

Fuqua Industries, Inc., t/a Snapper Power Equipment.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiffs claimed that a commercial walk-behind law mower was defective because it failed to stop instantly on release of the operator's "presence lever," allowing the machine to run over their minor causing severe injuries.

Below:

Defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed. The Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' Petition for Allowance of Appeal. 542 Pa. 670, 668 A.2d 1133 (1995).

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Snapper on appeal.

McEUIN v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP.

Client:

Crown Equipment Corporation and North West Handling Systems.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff sustained crush injuries to his foot when the standup forklift he was operating collided with a fixed object. Plaintiff claims the forklift is defective because it lacks a guard on the operator's compartment, which he claims would have prevented the injury.

Below:

$1.86 million jury award in Plaintiff's favor, including $1.25 million in punitive damages. Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Appeal:

Appeal pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland was retained post verdict to represent Defendants post trial and on appeal.

McGARVEY v. FORD MOTOR CO.

Client:

Ford Motor Company.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when he ran into the rear of an "incomplete vehicle" manufactured by Ford, which the dealership had allowed to be driven off the lot at night without any rear lights.

Below:

Defense verdict as to Ford. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland and William Conroy represented Ford on appeal.

MOSES v. FORD MOTOR CO.

Client:

Ford Motor Company and Suburban Ford.

Action:

Product liability. The father and one each from two sets of twins were killed, and the mother and each of the other twins suffered severe injuries, when the 1994 Ford Aerostar in which they were riding rolled over. Plaintiffs claim that the Aerostar is defective for a number of reasons, including the fact that it is unstable and susceptible to rollover accidents.

Below:

Defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed to the California Court of Appeal.

Appeal:

Appeal pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland and William Conroy represent Defendants on appeal.

IN RE PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION

Client:

Monsanto Company.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") as a result of living near or working at the Paoli Railroad Yard. As a result of such exposure, Plaintiffs claimed they had developed, and were at risk of developing in the future, a wide variety of injuries and conditions. Plaintiffs also claimed that the value of their properties had diminished as a result of the "stigma" of being located within the geographic boundaries of a federal Superfund site.

Below:

Defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Monsanto Company as co-counsel on appeal.

IN RE PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION

Client:

Monsanto Company.

Action:

Product liability. (Same as above.) Plaintiffs claimed that they were exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") as a result of living near or working at the Paoli Railroad Yard. As a result of such exposure, Plaintiffs claimed they had developed, and were at risk of developing in the future, a wide variety of injuries and conditions. Plaintiffs also claimed that the value of their properties had diminished as a result of the "stigma" of being located within the geographic boundaries of a federal Superfund site.

Below:

The trial court in the state litigation certified a class of individuals seeking periodic medical monitoring to detect the onset of disease caused by their alleged exposure to PCBs at an asymptomatic stage. Monsanto filed a Petition for Review - Pennsylvania's equivalent to a mandamus petition - in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court seeking emergency interlocutory review of the trial court's class certification order.

Appeal:

Petition granted. The interlocutory appeal was denied.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Monsanto Company in the Commonwealth Court.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES v. MONSANTO CO.

Client:

Monsanto Company.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiffs claimed that a fire in a high-rise office tower in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, caused widespread PCB contamination, requiring the demolition of the entire building. Plaintiffs sought roughly $250 million in damages for the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a "replacement" building.

Below:

The trial court denied various pretrial motions. Monsanto filed a Petition for Review - Pennsylvania's equivalent to a mandamus petition - in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking emergency interlocutory review of the trial court's pretrial rulings.

Appeal:

Emergency interlocutory review denied.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Monsanto Company in the Supreme Court.

PICKARD v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP.

Client:

Rockwell International Corporation.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff's fingers were amputated while using a table saw. Plaintiff claimed that the product was defective because it could be operated with the blade guard removed.

Below:

Summary judgment entered in favor of Rockwell. Plaintiff appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Appeal:

Affirmed.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Rockwell in the trial court and on appeal.

SAMUEL v. FORD MOTOR CO.

Client:

Ford Motor Company.

Action:

Product liability. A mother and her seven-month fetus were killed, and two other individuals sustained serious injuries, when the 1993 Ford Aerostar in which they were riding rolled over. Plaintiffs claim that the Aerostar is defective because it is unstable and susceptible to rollover accidents.

Below:

Defense verdict. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal:

Appeal pending.

Counsel:

Robert Toland and William Conroy represent Ford on appeal.

SIMMONS v. PACOR, INC.

Client:

Pennsylvania Defense Institute ("PDI"), as amicus curiae in support of various asbestos manufacturers.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiffs in three separate cases sought recovery for asymptomatic pleural thickening caused by asbestos exposure.

Below:

$950,000 total verdict for three Plaintiffs in consolidated case. The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed on the grounds that Plaintiffs could not recover any damages absent a present, symptomatic injury. 429 Pa. Super. 327, 632 A.2d 880 (1993). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted discretionary review of the Superior Court's decision.

Appeal:

Affirmed. In its Brief of Amicus Curiae in the Supreme Court, PDI argued that the Supreme Court should not permit recovery for medical monitoring, as urged by an amicus supporting the Plaintiffs. Although the Supreme Court affirmed, it recognized a cause of action for medical monitoring.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented PDI in the Supreme Court.

TUERK v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.

Client:

Travelers Insurance Company.

Action:

Product liability. Plaintiff claimed he was injured when the elevator in which he was riding "crashed."

Below:

The District Court, applying Pennsylvania's "Borrowing Statute," dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint as time barred and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing that Pennsylvania's Borrowing Statute violated his right to travel and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Appeal:

Petition denied.

Counsel:

Robert Toland represented Travelers in the U.S. Supreme Court.