Edward J. Tuite, Construction Attorney in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania

Ed joined Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in 2000. He concentrates his practice in special investigation unit/fraud investigation and defense, automobile, construction law, premises liability, and commercial trucking litigation. Over the course of his career, Ed has handled thousands of auto liability cases, hundreds of construction cases, and several hundred fraud cases involving auto and premises liability. He has represented numerous trucking companies and commercial carriers, as well as insurance carriers in project defense work regarding fraudulent and questionable billing practices, claims for personal injury protection, and medical benefit matters.

Ed's recent successful representations have included:
•Obtaining a defense verdict at trial in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in a multi-party wrongful death trucking case, where the co defendant was found solely liable and $3 million damages were awarded.
•Obtaining a non-suit prior to submission to a jury for a construction defendant joined to a multi-party construction case involving close-head trauma, where the jury ultimately awarded $2,750,000 in damages against the remaining co-defendants.
•Obtaining a defense verdict for a large trucking concern against claims of product spoliation and product liability, where the co-defendant was found liable for the plaintiff's damages in the amount of $16 million.
•Successfully defending at trial and at binding arbitration multiple high-exposure fraud cases in which either a defense verdict was obtained and/or claims were voluntary dismissal by the claimants. Ed has argued before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and has set the legal precedent in Pennsylvania that an employer cannot be sued in dual capacity circumstances, such as simultaneous product liability and employer liability. His courtroom experience includes approximately 175 trials or binding arbitrations and 75 jury trials, nearly half of which resulted in defense verdicts, and an equal number in which verdicts or settlements were obtained significantly below the settlement demand.

Ed is a 1978 graduate of St. Joseph's University and Villanova University School of Law, where he received his juris doctor in 1981. After law school, he entered private practice at Goushian, Mooradian & Goldsmith, where he handled a diverse range of civil litigation, from automobile liability to complex product liability matters.

For 14 years, Ed was the managing attorney of AIG Insurance Company's staff counsel for Philadelphia and surrounding counties, where he oversaw a legal staff of 45 and his offices handled general defense litigation, including automobile liability, product liability, professional liability and dram shop litigation.

Ed has lectured for various insurance claims departments on topics such as automobile litigation, construction litigation, SIU, and professional liability. He serves as a judge pro tempore for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, as well as an arbitrator for Montgomery County, Philadelphia County and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Outside of his practice, Ed is active in multiple coaching positions in local basketball and soccer organizations.

Honors & Awards

•AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell

Classes/Seminars Taught

•Update on Medical Fraud / Bad Economy and The Plot Thickens, Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud Perspectives Seminar, Lafayette Hill, PA, June 2012
•Medical Provider Fraud and the 3rd Party Case, Combating Insurance Fraud Seminar, Conshohocken, PA, 2010
•Emerging Trends in Fraud Litigation, Annual seminar to Chubb Insurance
•Auto Law Developments, First Acceptance Insurance Company
•Defending the Wrongful Death Case and Damages; Defending High Exposure Cases; and Construction Law Seminar to PAM Claims, on behalf of the PHI

Published Works

•'Uninsured Motorist Benefits Policy Limits - They Ain't What They Used To Be,' Defense Digest, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2011

Results

Successful Trial Result Achieved in a Philadelphia Premises Liability Matter

We received a successful trial result in a premises liability matter in Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff’s expert projected future surgeries and extensive life-long medical care costs of $1.25 million. Much of our defense centered on damages and demonstrating that the projected future medical care was not supported by the actual medical treatment provided. Additionally, video of the incident was used to demonstrate that the plaintiff had actual/constructive knowledge of spilled water in the premises but proceeded to walk in that area anyway. Forty percent comparative negligence was assigned to the plaintiff, and despite the plaintiff’s introduction of the medical cost projection described above, only $50,000 in future medical care was awarded by the jury. The total award, after a molded verdict, was $118,800, which our client viewed as a victory in this venue.

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

The “Innocent Plaintiff” Fair Share Argument Gains Momentum

October 1, 2022

Key Points:The federal court recently addressed the issue of the amount of credit due an underinsured motorist carrier. As part of its analysis, the court, in dicta, referenced a novel argument raised under the Fair Share Act.The good news is that the UIM carrier was entitled to a full credit of all underlying liability coverage irrespective of the Fair Share Act.The bad news is that the court predicted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hold, especially in third-party liability cases, that the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act only applies where the plaintiffs’ negligence is in question.In Anderson v. Motorist Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 WL 2238955 (W.D. Pa. June 22, 2022), the plaintiffs sued third-party tortfeasors and settled all of their claims. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a claim for UIM benefits. That carrier denied the claim on the basis that the value of the claim did not exceed the combined $5.1 million liability limits of the various third-party tortfeasors.In this claim, the plaintiffs’ decedent was an “innocent plaintiff”-a passenger in a motor vehicle accident. The vehicles involved had aggregate policy limits of $5.1 million.The court noted that the carrier’s UIM endorsement stated that the carrier would only pay the UIM benefits if the limits of liability under any applicable bodily injury or coverage policies had been exhausted by payments of judgments or settlements. The carrier contended that it should receive a credit of $5.1 million.The plaintiffs’ theory in Anderson was a novel one. They attempted to argue that, unless the carrier could prove that one of the defendants’ percentage of fault equaled or exceeded 60%, the carrier should only be entitled to a credit equal to the amount that the plaintiffs were legally entitled to recover from the joint tortfeasors, or $650,000, which was the sum of the amounts actually paid in the settlement. The plaintiffs based their argument on the applicability of the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act and its effect upon UIM coverage and joint and severability in Pennsylvania.The Anderson court found that there is no controlling Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent on the issue of the enforcement of exhausting clauses related to UIM benefits. However, it did indicate that several Pennsylvania Superior Court cases have held that a UIM carrier was entitled to the full amount of any liability limits that were available from the third-party tortfeasor.The plaintiffs in Anderson attempted to make the argument that those decisions were no longer applicable due to the passage of the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act.The court in its decision stated that, even if the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act altered the effect of these prior decisions, the plaintiffs’ argument still failed since the decedent’s negligence was not in question. Therefore, the applicability of the Pennsylvania Fair Share Act would not apply. It cited other prior Pennsylvania cases which suggest that a plaintiff’s negligence must be at issue in a case for the Fair Share Act to apply.As a result, this Western District of Pennsylvania Federal case predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find that the Fair Share Act does not apply in cases where a plaintiff’s negligence is not at issue and, as such, predicted that the Supreme Court would hold that traditional principles of joint and several liability, which existed before the Fair Share Act, would control .That is the bad news for carriers. The good news is that the court held that the language of the policy’s exhaustion clause in this case mandated that the UIM carrier was entitled to a credit for the full amount of liability limits available in the underlying third-party case, totaling $5.1 million.In conclusion, as per Anderson, any insurance carrier in Pennsylvania should evaluate whether or not there is any possible proof of negligence on the part of the plaintiff before it utilizes the Fair Share Act and its protections when evaluating such claims, in third-party liability cases and in UIM claims.*Ed is a senior counsel in our King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, office. He can be reached at 610.354.8483 or ejtuite@mdwcg.com.Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 3, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.