2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

order as a sanction under Rule 4019, as opposed to a non prosentered due to failure of a party to act?(3) Is there a requirement that a trial court must give notice and ahearing before it may enter a non pros under Rule 4019?Id. at 869.See id. at 872.The court reached the following conclusions:(1) As mandated by Supreme Court precedent, a uniformprocedure applies for appealing any type judgment of non pros,whether entered upon praecipe of a party or by court-orderedsanction. This procedure consists of the filing of a petition to openor strike off the judgment as prescribed in Pennsylvania Rule ofCivil Procedure 3051. Therefore, no type of order granting nonpros is immediately appealable, including orders entered by thecourts as sanctions under Rule 4019;(2) Because trial courts are burdened with a heavy docket, a courtmay non pros a case for failure to follow its orders or directiveswithout first requiring a showing of prejudice; and(3) Courts are not required to first conduct a hearing with theparties before imposing a sanction under Rule 4019(a).X. Insurance Coverage as to Professional Liability ClaimIn Post v. St. Paul Travelers Insurance Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 766 (E.D. Pa. 2009),Benjamin Post, Esquire, (“Post”) was hired by Mercy Hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania todefend a medical malpractice case. The plaintiffs in the medical malpractice suit, William andTukishia Bobbett, claimed that their four year old son had died as a result of medical malpracticewhile at Mercy Hospital. The Bobbetts’ attorney claimed discovery abuses against Post. Thecase was settled, in part due to allegations against Post for improperly abusing discoveryprocedures.After the medical malpractice action was settled, Post was put on notice from CatholicHealth East Partners that Mercy Hospital intended to sue Post. Post then retained GeorgeBochetto (“Bochetto”) as his attorney. The Bobbetts’ attorney filed a Sanctions Petition againstPost for the alleged discovery violations which took place in the medical malpractice action.Mercy Hospital effectively joined in the petition against Post. Post notified his ProfessionalLiability Insurance carrier, St. Paul Travelers Insurance Co. (“St. Paul”) of the pending SanctionsPetition against him, and they denied him coverage. It was St. Paul’s position that the SanctionsPetition only sought relief in the form of sanctions which are excluded under his ProfessionalLiability Policy (“Policy”).180