SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Federal Case Summaries
Berk v. Choy
United States Supreme Court
No. 24-440, 607 U.S. ____
Decided: January 20, 2026
United States Supreme Court holds that state law Affidavit/Certificate of Merit requirements do not apply to federal court proceedings because they conflict with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Background
In this action, Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice lawsuit in federal court against Defendants, Dr. Choy, Beebe Medical Center, Inc., and Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Middletown, LLC. The suit was filed under diversity jurisdiction and pursuant to Delaware state law. In Delaware, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must submit an “Affidavit of Merit,” which is a statement from a qualified expert certifying that the lawsuit has a reasonable basis. In this matter, Plaintiff failed to submit an Affidavit of Merit with his Complaint and did not request an extension before the deadline had passed. As Delaware statutory law treats the Affidavit of Merit as mandatory, the Federal District Court dismissed the case. Plaintiff appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Delaware Affidavit of Merit statute is substantive law and, therefore, must be enforced by a federal court sitting solely via diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff appealed this decision, as the applicability of state Affidavit of Merit requirements was split among the various Federal Circuit Courts. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether a federal court sitting in diversity must enforce a state law providing for the dismissal of a complaint that is not accompanied by an expert affidavit.
Holding
In an 8-1 Opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court held that Delaware’s law conflicted with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, as such, the state law does apply to a federal court sitting in diversity. This decision was reached via a detailed evaluation of the facts under the Erie Doctrine. Pursuant to that doctrine, where a valid federal rule of civil procedure directly conflicts with state law, the federal rule governs if it is procedural and within the Rules Enabling Act.
Delaware Code § 6853(a)(1), which requires plaintiffs to include an expert affidavit with a medical malpractice complaint, answers the same procedural question as Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, as both rules speak to the information a plaintiff must provide about the merits of a claim in order to proceed with a lawsuit. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only a “short and plain” statement showing entitlement to relief, not evidentiary support such as an affidavit. Delaware’s law directly conflicts with the federal rule because Rule 8 implicitly, but clearly, excludes a requirement for supporting evidence at the pleadings stage. The Court rejected the argument that the affidavit requirement was substantive, reasoning that it regulates how a claim is filed, not the underlying rights or obligations of the parties. To allow the states to impose such requirements in federal court would undermine the uniform civil procedure governing federal courts. The decision makes clear that states cannot use procedural requirements to alter federal practice in diversity cases. This is seemingly the case even where the state procedural rule has substantive policy goals, as is the case with Pennsylvania’s Certificate of Merit requirement, which aims to reduce frivolous litigation.
Questions about this case can be directed to Taryn Vender at 570.825.4794 or tvender@tthlaw.com.
Saeli v. GEICO Advantage Ins. Co.
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
No. 1:24-CV-00025-RAL
Decided: January 28, 2026
Insurance information found not admissible in Post-Koken UIM trial.
Background
Plaintiff Saeli presented a claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits against Defendant GEICO, her first party insurer. She was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident with the tortfeasor on July 21, 2022. The tortfeasor had automobile insurance liability limits of $100,000. Plaintiff Saeli claimed head injuries, concussion, neck injuries, and back injuries due to the tortfeasor’s negligence. She settled her third party claims against the tortfeasor for $97,500. Defendant GEICO gave consent for the settlement. The central issues in this UIM litigation concerned the nature and extent of Plaintiff Saeli’s damages. Prior to trial, Defendant GEICO filed a Motion in limine seeking to preclude Plaintiff from introducing any evidence or testimony concerning the amount of tortfeasor’s liability limits, the UIM limits, or premiums paid.
The Court found that all but one of the decisions from the Western District of Pennsylvania had held that evidence of coverage limits and premiums paid provide no benefit to the jury in determining the issue of damages and that, even if such evidence is minimally relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. A jury’s role is to assess a plaintiff’s symptoms, medical evidence, and future care needs, and a jury is not to consider insurance limits. Similarly, the amount of insurance premiums is unnecessary and potentially misleading. The Court’s analysis was consistent with the majority position of Courts in the Circuit, and it thus granted Defendant Geico’s Motion.
Holding
Evidence concerning the amount of the tortfeasor’s liability limits, the UIM limits, or premiums paid is inadmissible because the probative value of such evidence, if any, is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice and confusion of issues it is likely to cause.
Questions about this case can be directed to Randy Burch at 610.332.7025 or rburch@tthlaw.com.