TTH Attorney Amanda Hennessey recently won summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The action stemmed from an accident that occurred on September 3, 2021. Plaintiff was vacationing in Avalon, New Jersey. Late that night, he was biking down 25th Street towards Ocean Drive when his bicycle collided with a van that was traveling on Ocean Drive. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries as a result of the accident and had no memory of the day of the accident, including the accident itself. The driver of the van told the police that he believed he had a green light and was traveling less than 25 mph. The police investigation concluded that the crash was directly attributed to Plaintiff running the red light and colliding with the van.
Plaintiff settled with the alleged tortfeasor for the $25,000 policy limits. The release included language that the settlement did not “constitute an admission on behalf of any party . . . and that liability herewith is more specifically denied.” After settling with the alleged tortfeasor, Plaintiff asserted UIM claims demanding policy limits against Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, his own auto insurance carrier, and Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, his parents’ auto insurance carrier. Plaintiff claimed that the alleged tortfeasor was negligent based on two theories: (1) the driver of the van ran a red light at the intersection; and (2) the driver of the van was negligent, regardless of the color of the intersection light, because he could have (and should have) seen Plaintiff approaching the intersection, but did nothing to avoid the collision.
In the UIM action, Defendants provided substantial evidence that the light was green for the van driver. However, Plaintiff attempted to create a genuine dispute on this issue through testimony that he had a habit of biking safely and obeying traffic signals. The Court, however, determined that any evidence of usual activity is irrelevant when it is contradicted by undisputed evidence of what actually happened. Herein, Defendants’ expert report specifically addressed whether the van driver could have avoided the collision and determined, based on a multitude of scenarios, that more than 90% of drivers would have been unable to avoid the collision. There could be no genuine issue of material fact on that issue because Plaintiff did not offer any evidence to rebut Defendants’ evidence. In considering Defendants’ expert report in ruling on the Motion for summary judgment, the Court applied the rule set forth in Estate of Thomas v. Fayette County, 194 F. Supp. 3d 358, 368 (W.D. Pa. 2016), which provides that an “expert report may allow a moving party to fulfill its initial burden of showing that the nonmoving party has failed to support its claim or failed to introduce a genuine issue of material fact necessitating a trial [which in turn] requires the nonmoving party to come forward with specific record evidence to show why a trial is necessary.”
Lastly, the Court disagreed with Plaintiff that summary judgment should be denied because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to his level of intoxication at the time of the accident. As the Court recognized, even if this was a disputed fact, it would only be relevant to Defendants’ affirmative defenses regarding Plaintiff’s comparative negligence. Defendants, however, did not need to prove their affirmative defenses because Plaintiff failed to satisfy his prima facie burden and, therefore, this factual dispute as to Plaintiff’s intoxication would not defeat Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment.
Questions about this case, or requests for the Opinion, can be directed to Amanda Hennessey at 717.237.7103 or ahennessey@tthlaw.com.