Opening hours / Monday – Friday / 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. (Saturday by appointment)
This was a contested class action, in which William Radcliffe represented over 300 school districts in Pennsylvania that were entitled to reimbursement from a cyber school organization. The case settled the day before trial with some school districts receiving six figure settlements.”
This was a class action against Erie regarding its calculation of wage loss benefits for its own insureds injured in motor vehicle accidents. Our client maintained that Erie underpaid its insureds, and after appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with our client’s position.
This was a class action against Windsor for invalid rejection forms for uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits due to injuries in motor vehicle accidents. We maintained that Windsor wrongfully failed to pay those benefits to its own insureds. This class action was settled with Windsor paying all insureds who made claims the applicable benefits.
This was a class action against Progressive because Progressive had issued rejection forms for uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits on the same page, which was illegal under the law. After six years of litigation, the case was settled with any insured who had a similar rejection form and filed a claim receiving benefits.
This was a class action against Highmark based upon its practice of attempting to collect money from its insureds for medical bills when they were injured in motor vehicle accidents. The case was settled with Highmark’s insureds being reimbursed by Highmark.
This was a class action against Erie based upon its deceptive practice of charging insureds increased premiums for stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage on single vehicle policies when they could receive the same coverage for less. The case settled with insureds who filed claims being reimbursed the premium difference.
This was a second class action against one of Progressive’s insurance companies for rejection of uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits forms which were invalid because they did not have the required statutory language. The case was settled with any insured who had a claim being paid the applicable benefits.
This was a class action against Encompass similar to the Romesburg case. The case was settled on similar terms with any insured who had a claim who had an “invalid form” receiving uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits.
This was a class action against Safe Auto similar to the Shultz case. This case was resolved after Safe Auto agreed to reimburse any qualifying insured who filed a claim, the agreed premium difference.