Our class action defense practice involves the defense of large corporate clients
in a variety of class action lawsuits. This has been an exciting and growing practice
area for our firm since its inception.

The following are cases from Mr. Moughan's representation of class action clients.
Please note that each case is unique and has specific legal and factual circumstances
which affect the result. These cases are provided for informational purposes only and
are in no way a guarantee of a particular result in a future case.

Successfully represented auto insurer in a federal court medical payments class action
and negotiated a statewide non-monetary class-wide settlement.

Sucessfully defended fire insurer in a case challenging the right to deduct depreciation
in partial losses. The case was consolidated with 8 other class actions against other
carriers and our firm was lead counsel in presenting argument before the trial court
and the appellate court.

Successfully defended fire insurer against a class action arguing for use of the appraisal process to determine coverage disputes. We prevailed at the trial court level and plaintiff ultimately obtained approval of a settlement of the individual claim for a nominal amount.

Successfully defended auto insurer against class action claim for unpaid interest on late paid medical bills. Lost at the trial court level but successfully presented an interlocutory appeal to the Superior Court and obtained a reversal in the Superior Court on the grounds that there is no private right of action for medical providers under the Pennsylvania MVFRL for unpaid interest on late paid medical claims. Case was appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where it has been fully briefed and argued. Our firm worked with counsel for several insurers and several amici in both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court, and Mr. Moughan presented argument for all parties at the trial court, Superior Court and Supreme Court level.

Successfully defended auto insurer against a class action seeking payment of loss of wages or salary per diem for insureds asked to attend arbitrations or trials. We argued that the class representative lacked standing to pursue the claims since his individual claims were time-barred. The Court granted our preliminary objections to all claims except for a section 8371 bad faith claim holding that a six year statute of limitations applied to that claim. We were successful in petitioning for allowance of appeal of that ruling, arguing that the proper statute of limitations for a section 8371 claim is two years and not six years, which has subsequently become the law of Pennsylvania . While our appeal was pending, the individual plaintiff withdrew their case with leave of court inasmuch as the only claim remaining was the bad faith claim standing alone.

Represented fire insurer in a homeowner's claim challenging the withholding of overhead and profit in all actual cash value payments. We were successful at the trial court level in arguing that overhead and profit is not a part of an actual cash value payment until incurred. That decision was reversed at the Superior Court level, but we were able to achieve a result in which the Court held that the payment of overhead and profit should be a case-by-case determination depending upon the facts of the loss at issue and that a reasonableness standard should apply as to when overhead and profit ought to be paid as part of actual cash value. This opinion has subsequently been very helpful in defending against both class certification issues in these types of cases as well as the substantive claim.

Represented fire insurer against claim alleging that overhead and profit should be paid whenever more than one building trade is necessary to repair a loss. We obtained a summary judgment at the trial level, which is presently on appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and we are in the midst of briefing at this time.