HORST KREKSTEIN & RUNYON, LLC 

2025 TOP TEN LIST

Phinorice Boldin and Ethan Clarke Horst Krekstein & Runyon, LLC

The following is Horst, Krekstein & Runyon LLC’s list of the top ten personal injury cases in 2024.  We selected these cases because they clarify the circumstances in which (a) an employer can be held responsible for the violent acts of its employee; (b) a mental health treatment facility can be held responsible to a non-patient third party; and (c) a merchant can be held responsible to its customers for the harmful conduct of third parties.  We also selected these cases because they explain the potential limitations on expert testimony; explain Pennsylvania’s conflict of law rules; and make it plain that a plaintiff must serve a complaint timely, even if the defendant is  fully aware that a complaint has been filed against it.

1.              Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18354

(E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2025)

The Matos case sets forth the circumstances in which an employer will not be held responsible for the violent acts of its employee.  The plaintiff, who was violently assaulted by an Uber driver, sued Uber claiming that it had negligently hired, trained and/or supervised its driver.  The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because (a) the driver’s violent conduct was not of the nature that he was hired to perform; (b) the conduct did not serve the employer, and (c) the force used was not expected by the employer.

2. Janik v. Zoological Society of Philadelphia, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 184

(April 22, 2025)

 The Janik case illustrates the importance of explaining the “open and obvious” doctrine in jury instructions and including it on the verdict sheet.  The plaintiff, who was injured when he tripped over a decorative boulder at the Zoo, sued the Zoological Society for negligence. The defendant appealed a jury verdict against it claiming that the jury instructions and the verdict sheet should have referenced the “open and obvious” doctrine.  The court agreed and ordered a new trial because (a) there was conflicting evidence as to whether the boulder was “open and obvious” and (b) the references to the doctrine during the trial, without explaining its meaning, likely confused the jurors. 

3.              Matos v. Geisinger Medical Center, 2025 Pa. LEXIS 599

(April 25, 2025)

This Matos matter highlights when a mental health facility must provide  inpatient treatment to a mentally ill  person, in crisis, who requests treatment.  The plaintiffs, the administrators of the Estate of Jessica Frederick, sued two (2) medical centers for failing to treat Westley Wise, Ms. Frederick’s boyfriend, after he told them he was suicidal and requested inpatient psychiatric treatment.  Shortly after the facilities denied him inpatient treatment, Mr. Wise killed Ms. Frederick. The court held that a mental health treatment facility may be held liable to a non-patient third party for gross negligence if the facility refuses inpatient treatment to a mentally ill person seeking treatment.

4.          Weston v. Farberware Licensing Co., LLC, 2025, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90378

(E.D. Pa. May 13, 2025) 

The Weston matter explains when a plaintiff can advance a products liability claim based on the “consumer expectations” theory, without the use of expert testimony.  The plaintiff sued the manufacturer and seller of a pressure cooker (the “product”) that malfunctioned and injured her severely, claiming that the product did not meet the consumer expectations test (i.e., it performed below the “commonly accepted minimum safety standards of its ultimate consumer …” and was therefore defective.  The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the product was too complex for the ordinary consumer to have any expectation on its safety and allowed the plaintiff to advance the “consumer expectations” theory at trial. 

5.             Borth, Administrators of the Estate of Patricia Borth v. Alpha Century Security, Inc., Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc., et.al., 2025 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1988

(Aug. 1, 2025)

The Borth case illustrates circumstances when a merchant can be held responsible to its customers for the harmful conduct of third parties.  The plaintiffs, the administrators of the Estate of Patricia Borth, sued the defendants for injuries sustained by Ms. Borth from a brutal attack committed by a customer of Defendant Rite Aid’s store  (the “Store”).  The Store was a high crime location, and considering the Store’s issues with crime, the court ruled that Defendant Rite Aid owed Ms. Borth the duty to take reasonable precautions against harmful third-party conduct that might be reasonably anticipated.

6.             S latowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19316

(3d. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) 

The Slatowski matter explains that expert testimony on causation is not required if there is sufficient background information and fact testimony for the jurors to decide causation.  The plaintiff, a law enforcement officer who was injured when his pistol discharged, unintentionally, sued the manufacturer of the pistol claiming the pistol was defectively designed.  The court held that the plaintiff’s expert could not testify on causation, but he could testify as to the defective design of the pistol and that testimony, along with eyewitness testimony regarding how the incident occurred, was enough for the jury to decide whether the pistol caused the incident. 

7.         Knight v. Avco Corp. 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182979

(M.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2025)

 In Knight, the court explains how Pennsylvania’s conflict of law rules may lead to the application of the laws of competing states to different claims asserted in the case.  The plaintiffs, the administrators of the estates of a pilot and passenger who died in a  helicopter crashed in Maryland, sued the manufacturer of the engine that powered the helicopter in Pennsylvania, where the engine manufacturer was based.  The court applied Pennsylvania’s conflict of law rules and determined that the contributory negligence claims would be decided consistent with Maryland law, and the remaining issues, the damage cap and claim for punitive damages would be decided consistent with the laws of Pennsylvania. 

8.              Derbyshire v. Jefferson Frankford Hospital,  2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 553

(December 20, 2024)

In Derbyshire, the court makes clear that, even if the plaintiff secures a default judgement against the defendant,  the plaintiff must still prove that the defendant caused her alleged damages.  The plaintiff, who tripped on the defendant’s property and claimed to have fractured her left leg, brought a negligence claim against the defendant and secured a default judgement against the defendant.  The court ruled, although the defendant admitted liability through the default judgment, that admission did not relieve the plaintiff of her obligation to prove a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the damages alleged.

 9.              Dickerson v. United States Steel Corp., 2025 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2340

(Sept. 8, 2025) 

Dickenson illustrates the factors courts consider and the analysis courts undertake to address challenges to venue.  The plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of her husband, a resident of North Carolina who developed a disease from exposure to benzene, brought negligence and strict liability claims against several defendants, based in Pennsylvania, who manufactured and/or sold products containing benzene.  The court held that the case should be tried in North Carolina because only three (3) of the originally named defendants were based in Pennsylvania and North Carolina had a greater interest in the case as all the events and parties were connected to that state. 

 10.               Vargas v. United Modular Enterprises, 2025 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2926

(November 13, 2025)

In Vargas, the court explains that a plaintiff must attempt to serve a complaint timely, even if the defendant knows of the action.  The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.  The defendants knew about the case, as counsel for the defendants entered their appearances within days of the filing of the complaint.  The court dismissed the complaint as time barred because the plaintiff made no attempt to serve the complaint until five (5) months after the statute of limitations had run. ©

AN INSURER’S DUTY TO REPORT SUSPECTED FRAUD: SPOTLIGHT ON THE NICB

Bob Horst and Elise DiGuiseppe Horst Krekstein & Runyon, LLC

The National Insurance Crime Bureau (“NICB”) is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to combatting and preventing insurance fraud.  With offices and task forces around the country, the well-defined, public mission of the NICB includes assistance to insurers when there is reasonably suspected fraud. Even a cursory review of the NICB website reveals substantial information useful to an insurance company representative interested in the organization’s mission and the “how to” associated with fraud identification and investigation.  As discussed in this article, reporting suspected fraud to the NICB can satisfy an insurer’s statutory duty to report, per Pennsylvania statute, while also potentially enhancing the already-existing investigation. With insurance fraud continually on the rise, formal investigation into potential fraud remains necessary to protect insurers and consumers, while also seeking to reduce financial burdens on both. There can be no dispute over the obvious:  insurance fraud causes increased costs for consumers and insurers alike, with results including increased premiums, costs associated with investigation, and the elimination of resources that should otherwise be available for the consideration of legitimate claims. Pennsylvania anti-fraud legislation and the existence of the NICB exist within the intersection of the insurance industry, efforts to identify and eliminate fraud/waste, and law enforcement.  Pennsylvania’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (“the IFPA”) declares illegal the presentation to an insurer information that is “false incomplete or misleading… concerning any fact or thing material to the claim.”  18 Pa.C.S. § 4117.  Meanwhile, the reporting of that suspected fraud is mandatory for insurers.  In addition to the IFPA’s requirement, the reporting of suspected fraud is mandated by additional statutes as well. See e.g. 40 P.S. § 1610.3 (b)(1) and 75 Pa C.S. § 1817.  Importantly, the Commonwealth’s Department of Insurance (“DOI”) underscored this obligation via two (2) Bulletins, in 2016 then 2017.  The 2016 Bulletin, 46 Pa.B. 2251, Arson and Insurance Fraud Reporting (Notice 2016-04), explains mandated reporting via reference to reporting to “a law enforcement agency for consideration of criminal investigation and prosecution.”

 Certainly, one of those referenced “organizations” is the NICB.  Yet, some insurers have inquired as to whether a report to the NICB meets the statutory requirement to report.  The answer to that question is “yes.” 

Shortly after the publication of the 2016 Bulletin, a national media outlet reported on the issue, when Insurance Journal described the 2016 Bulletin, and addressed how it authorized insurers to file reports electronically with the NICB, “instead of making a written report.”  See insurancejournal.com/news/east (“Pennsylvania Advises Insurers On Arson, Insurance Fraud Reporting Rules,” May 26, 2016). The DOI provided additional emphasis to the NICB’s existing role, in this Commonwealth, via Bulletin 2017-10, 47 Pa.B. 6281 (“the 2017 Bulletin”), which states that “insurers and their licensees” are permitted to file reports related to suspected arson and insurance fraud with the NICB (emphasis added).  While again advising and reminding insurers of their affirmative statutory duty to report suspected fraud, the 2017 Bulletin characterized arson and fraud as “serious crimes” and again emphasized the ability of insurers to comply with the reporting requirement by filing reports electronically with the NICB.  The NICB website, meanwhile, provides a clear pathway for reporting, via a prominent “Make a Report” button on the home page and an electronic form available via:https://www.nicb.org/how-we-help/report-fraud  The website also provides a telephone number for use in reporting: 800.TEL.NICB (800.835.6422)

Once reported, the NICB, with its experienced agents, may also conduct an investigation into the suspected fraud. Via collaboration with an insurer’s employees/ representatives, SIU groups, and/or law enforcement agency professionals, NICB “Special Agents” often expedite investigations and facilitate a resolution. Agents also, when appropriate, assist with civil actions and criminal prosecutions of those participating in insurance fraud.  The NICB has a number of auto, property, and medical agents in the Pennsylvania area. Their contact information is listed below:

Auto-Property Agents

 Greg Wolfe

gwolfe@ncib.org

609-649-3785

Keith Stetor

kstetor@ncib.org

724-601-4577

Shawn Conrad

sconrad@ncib.org

484-507-3314

Jack Quinn

jquinn@ncib.org

267-885-3895

Al Quintile

aquintile@ncib.org

267-355-7695

Medical Agents

Terri DiGiorgio

tdigiorgio@nicb.org

847-544-7321

Matt Sciabica

msciabica@nicb.org

610-295-8818

John Petroski

jpetroski@nicb.org

609-508-6352

Please visit www.nicb.org for more information on the  NICB and its resources. Previously posted in PACIA Pulse, May 2025 edition ©

CLAIMS INVESTIGATIONS AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

By: Christian Stoll Horst Krekstein & Runyon, LLC

An insured invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not preclude a carrier for denying coverage for failing to cooperate. Multiple federal courts have held that an insured’s refusal to submit to an examination under oath, on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, is a breach of the insurance contract. Pervis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944, 946-947 (11th Cir. 1990). Courts have also held that a refusal to answer questions at an  examination under oath also constitutes a breach of the insurance contract, by failing to comply with a provision in the policy, thus precluding recovery by the insured. Kisting v. Westchester Fire. Ins. Co., 290 F. Supp. 141, 147-148 (W.D. Wisc. 1968). When an insured refuses to submit to an examination under oath, on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment, federal courts have held this is a bar to recovery for the insured for failure to comply with the requirement to submit to an examination under the policy. Hutchinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43819, *5-6 (N.D. Ga. 2018).

Further, federal courts have held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not absolve an insured of their duty to cooperate under the insurance policy. In Med. Protective Co. v. Hipke, an insured was deposed by MedPro’s coverage counsel and asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer questions. The court held the refusal to answers questions prevented MedPro from evaluating the claim and thus established prejudice constituting a breach of the policy. Med. Protective Co. v. Hipke, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157610, *5-8 (E.D. Tx. 2023).

The Western District Court of Pennsylvania has held that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not trump an insured’s duty to cooperate  with their insurer under the policy. In Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., the court found the insured’s refusal to make a statement to State Farm impaired State Farm’s ability to evaluate the claim and decide whether to defend her, thus establishing substantial prejudice to Statement Farm’s investigation and defense. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 771 F. Supp. 704, 707-709 (W.D. Pa. 1991). Previously posted in PACIA Pulse, June 2025 edition ©

FOUR WHEEL FRAUD: THE STEADY ACCELERATION OF VEHICLE FINANCE FRAUD

By: Kristina A. Timberman, 3L Widener University Law School, Law Clerk, Horst Krekstein & Runyon, LLC

Vehicle finance fraud has increasingly become a large issue for those on the market for new cars and the ones who make a living selling them. According to the American Financial Services Association in 2024, vehicle finance fraud was a $9 billion issue—a 16% increase from 2023. Now, 1.3% of all auto lending is fraudulent. Misleading, deceitful, or downright false information is given by car purchasers or sellers during the financing portion of the vehicle purchase process to further these scams. Different fraudulent tactics are used on both sides of the deal to receive better financing terms, boost profits, or to simply speed up or ease the process of obtaining an auto loan. However, fraudulent auto loans have a long-lasting impact on auto buyers, lenders, and sellers’ finances, credit, and reputation.

 How Dealers Can Protect Themselves from Consumers Engaged in Fraud:

 With technology advancing and scammers coming up with newer, better ways to defraud the system, it is imperative for dealers to implement ways to protect themselves from being victims of fraudulent schemes. Starting from the root, dealers should utilize technology to verify the identities of the people they want to do business with. Having a process to verify income, employment, and financial stability of a consumer can spare a lot of money, cars, and sleepless nights. Another way to combat future fraud is training the dealership’s sales representatives to enhance their knowledge of signs of fraud and how to communicate with law enforcement when they run into customers trying to defraud them. 

 Common Dealer and Financer Traps in Conducting Fraud:

 Like consumers, dealers and sellers may also not be innocent when it comes to vehicle financing. Much like car buyers, dealers may turn to fraudulent practices often for financial gain. From concealing material vehicle information to outright altering contract terms post-agreement, there are several ways dealers have immersed themselves into the vehicle finance fraud scheme.

 A recurrent, popular scam called “yo-yo Financing” is used by dealerships who offer their own financing rather than outsourcing lenders. This practice involves a dealer allowing the customer to leave the lot with the car before waiting for the financing to be approved. Then, the dealer makes the customer come back and attempts to sell a more expensive loan. If the customer does not agree to the more expensive loan, then the car must be returned. This type of scheme is a lose-lose situation for the customer—they will either walk away with nothing or with a car they will pay more for than they originally agreed upon.

 Another scam called “bait-and-switch” involves the dealer’s advertisement of attractive financing terms. However, when a customer comes to the dealership in search of said terms, they are told they do not qualify and are given unpleasant terms.

 “Buy Here, Pay Here” scams target individuals with poor credit. The dealerships offer direct financing with terms that include extreme interest rates and limited protections for the consumer. Often, on-time payments will not be reported resulting in no positive impact to the customers credit score. This would especially be helpful if they are trying to build or increase their credit with a car payment but limited to purchasing a vehicle from a dealership conducting one of these schemes.

There are several different ways dealers may exhibit fraudulent behavior. With he power dynamics that could be preset at some car dealerships, it is important for consumers to understand how to spot fraud, report fraud, and protect themselves from fraud.

 Consumer Protections: Preventing and Reporting Fraud

 The best way for a consumer to protect themselves from becoming a victim of a dealer’s fraudulent scheme is by being prepared when walking into a dealership and speaking to financers. Shopping around and finding an understanding of how other dealerships are financing the same or similar vehicles helps consumers spot fraudulent practices.

Conclusion:

 With the constant rise of vehicle finance fraud, it is important for buyers, sellers, and financers to be aware of the behaviors and actions people are taking in attempt to defraud those on the other side of the transaction. Being aware of common techniques and schemes gives those at risk the ability to protect themselves and report the activity to decrease the issue, recoup billions of stolen dollars, and foster a better reputation and trust of lenders. While it may be challenging with the rapid development of technology, education and awareness is the first step to a decrease—and hopeful elimination—of vehicle finance fraud for all. Previously posted in the PACIA Pulse October 2025 edition ©

FROM PROSECUTOR TO CIVIL COUNSEL: HOW ONE CASE REDEFINED MY CAREER.

By Marc J. Furber Horst Krekstein & Runyon, LLC

In 2014, I was a seasoned prosecutor with the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office.  I had prosecuted several high-profile murder trials and was the Chief of Economic Crimes after having established the unit more than a decade before.  Every new case brought new and exciting challenges.  It meant constant learning, reevaluation, and discovery.  The job was demanding, but it was never boring.  Despite this process of constant change, my core mission remained the same: I was there to help when help was needed.

 In 2014, a highly respected Detective who I had worked closely with in the past, asked for my help with an investigation.  He came to my office and handed me a neatly organized binder of materials.  He proceeded to explain the investigation and asked me to prosecute it.  I agreed.  The investigation involved an incendiary house fire and a fraudulent insurance claim.  I was familiar with arson matters but only had a rudimentary understanding of insurance fraud.  I knew the motive in this case was the proceeds of the insurance claim that the Defendant had filed.  But there were other aspects to this uniquely challenging case that, in hindsight, led me directly to where I am now.

 The case required a very deep dive into the claim.  This meant reviewing the details of prior claims, including one that the Defendant made for a similar house fire several years before.  By closely examining the Defendant’s finances, we were able to determine that the Defendant never made the repairs to his home after the prior settlement.  Instead, he lived on the insurance company’s funds and used them to support his gambling addiction.  Those funds were dwindling and nearly exhausted by the time of the second fire.

 I filed a motion to admit the circumstances of the prior insurance claim and was successful in arguing that the prior claim was probative of the Defendant’s motive in this case.  My theory was that the Defendant, having run the well dry, was looking for a “cash infusion” from the insurance company to replace the funds that he had gambled away.  He was essentially looking for his insurance company to fund his gambling.

 Digging into the claim information gave me a bird’s eye view into the civil world.  Suddenly, my most valued impeachment evidence at trial became transcripts of Examinations Under Oath (EUO) that were conducted by insurance defense counsel.  During the trial, a defense witness was met with glares, and some laughter, by the jury after he was confronted with his EUO testimony.  And the Defendant chose not to testify in his own defense rather than be confronted with his own EUO transcript and other incriminating statements.

 The trial resulted in a conviction on all counts. Shortly thereafter, I became Chief of the Insurance Fraud Unit in Bucks County.  Suddenly, I was inundated with new and challenging insurance fraud investigations.  But I soon learned that insurance fraud was similar to other crimes I had prosecuted.  Every investigation was unique.  There was always some strange new twist to an investigation that shifted the analysis. 

 Throughout my time as Chief of Insurance Fraud, I looked back to that first insurance fraud prosecution.  It taught me to look under the surface of a claim and never take anything at face value.  I was there to help the insurance professionals that referred these investigations by applying my knowledge and experience to each new case.

 Earlier this year, after 26 years with the Bucks County District Attorney’s Office, I was thrilled to make the switch to the civil world.  I was presented with a tremendous opportunity to join Horst Krekstein & Runyon LLC.  I knew I could bring significant value to the firm because of my background as an insurance fraud prosecutor.  Now I find myself handling the very EUOs and depositions that I was eager to use at trial when I was a prosecutor.  The core mission has not changed.  I quickly recognized this when communicating with clients during my first few weeks as a civil attorney.  Whether it’s a claim representative, SIU investigator or another insurance company representative, I recognize the request regardless of how they phrase it: they are asking for help.  That was my job as a prosecutor, and that is my job now as civil counsel.  I’m here to provide the best help that I can offer by applying my experience and knowledge to the case at hand. 

I’m still thankful to the Detective who walked into my office in 2014 and asked for my help.  That case set me on a path that ultimately led to a new and rewarding chapter here at Horst Krekstein & Runyon LLC.  The firm’s culture aligns seamlessly with my own philosophy, and I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute my knowledge while offering the same consistency that defined my first chapter as a lawyer.  I will continue to evaluate each case’s unique facts through the lens of diligence, experience, and sound judgement. ©