It is important to understand there are no guarantees involved with legal services. It is just like in a court of law where an attorney could never guarantee a client that the judge or jury would find in their favor. Because every case is different, the descriptions of awards and cases previously handled are not meant to be a guarantee of success.

The Law Office of Scott C. Rosentrater, LLC is a law firm and its attorneys are held to the highest ethical standards by their states’ rules of professional conduct. Also, the Law Office of Scott C. Rosentrater, LLC offers its years of experience and its good name as assurances that your case will be handled responsibly and professionally.

For more details, please see our disclaimer at: 

http://www.rosentraterlaw.com/Disclaimer.html

Case Conclusion Date:
April 30, 2011

Practice Area:
Insurance

Outcome:
Our Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Plaintiffs' appeals were denied by the Superior and the Supreme Court.

Description:
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Hon. Arnold L. New) where Mr. Rosentrater was actively involved in the representation of the defendant (an insurance carrier). Summary judgment was granted in favor of Mr. Rosentrater's client against plaintiffs' claims of bad faith for my client's denial of plaintiffs' insurance claim. Mr. Rosentrater's exhaustive investigation successfully proved that Mr. Rosentrater's client had a reasonable basis to deny coverage given substantial evidence that actions by the plaintiffs triggered the arson exclusion.

Plaintiffs' subsequent appeals were denied by the Superior and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In a seventeen page opinion in support of an affirming the Trial Court's Order granting summary judgment, the Superior Court stated, "[defendant/client]'s policy contained an arson exclusion, upon which it relied in denying coverage herein. 'Arson by an insured under a policy of fire insurance is an affirmative defense to the insurer's obligations under the policy. As such, the burden is on the insurer to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the fire was caused by arson.' Seals, Inc. v. Tioga County Grange Mutual Insurance Co., 519 A.2d 951, 954 (Pa.Super. 1986). An inference that arson was committed by the insured is created when three facts are present: '(1) an incendiary fire; (2) a motive by the insured to destroy the property; and (3) circumstantial evidence connecting the insured to the fire.' Sperrazza v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 459 A.2d 409, 410-11 (Pa.Super. 1983). Herein, [defendant/client]'s evidence established all three elements. . . . Hence, we agree with the trial court that there Is no issue of material fact that [defendant/client] properly denied coverage on the basis of the arson exclusion in the policy."

Links to Background of the Case:

Videos:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZ3DY6345Q

News Articles and Photos:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-154770

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=PR&Date=20081127&Category=PHOTOS1013&ArtNo=1127002&Ref=PH&Presentation=desktop#

http://articles.mcall.com/2009-03-18/news/4332327_1_blaze-arson-thanksgiving-day-fire-rite-aid

Case Conclusion Date:
January 1, 2011

Practice Area:
Litigation

Outcome:
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his own case and co defendant's claims were also extinguished.

Description:
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (Hon. William E. Ford) where Mr. Rosentrater represented the defendant (property owner). Defended client whose house was obliterated in a natural gas explosion causing pieces of Mr. Rosentrater's client's home to cause extensive shrapnel and blast damage to a property owned by plaintiff (an adjacent neighbor). This was a large loss property subrogation claim. Neither plaintiff nor co defendant (natural gas utility company) were unable to establish the source of the gas infiltration, defendant's notice of a defect, and the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio (the proper physical conditions) for an explosion to have occurred.

Links to Background of the Case:

Videos:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPk3JDEWgXw

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo6oLYEmMgE

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItuSGuzH-9E


News Articles and Photos:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/11/allentown_house_is_destroyed_i.html

http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=35075264

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21684795@N05/sets/72157610144140033/detail/

Case Conclusion Date:
September 30, 2010

Practice Area:
Litigation

Outcome:
Mr. Rosentrater's client was released from the action with no fear of future action. Co defendant will not bring a subsequent case for indemnity and contribution ('pay and chase') since there was no contractual provision between the defendants.

Description:
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Hon. Esther R. Sylvester) where Mr. Rosentrater represented the defendant (security guard company) which worked in a Center-City department store (co-defendant) where plaintiff alleged that she was falsely accused of shoplifting, and also claimed that she sustained severe wrist fractures and a shoulder tendon tear when she was detained by my clients. Plaintiff was detained by my clients because they had probable cause to believe plaintiff was a shoplifter. Even after five days trial, Mr. Rosentrater's client made no contribution toward settlement which was paid by co defendant towards plaintiff's claim.

Case Conclusion Date:
August 31, 2010

Practice Area:
Defective / Dangerous Products

Outcome:
We paid the verdict - which was only one third of what was originally offered.

Description:
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Hon. Joseph A. Dych) where Mr. Rosentrater was actively involved in the representation of the defendant (construction equipment supply distributor of pile driver with telescopic leader) in a products liability action where plaintiff had allegations of design defects as well as failure to warn and other like claims which resulted in an accident that caused plaintiff to suffer severe hip fractures for which he claimed that he was forced into premature retirement. Successfully struck two of plaintiff's liability experts, obtained a low jury award, and quashed plaintiff's appeal, per curiam, in Superior Court.

Case Conclusion Date:
February 29, 2008

Practice Area:
Slip and Fall Accident

Outcome:
Win at Trial. No appeal was filed.

Description:
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Hon. Paul P. Panepinto) where Mr. Rosentrater represented the defendant (City of Philadelphia) in a premises liability action. Plaintiff successfully proved liability, however, plaintiff was unable to establish that her foot fracture was a permanent injury thereby resulting in a defense verdict before a Philadelphia jury trial.

Case Conclusion Date:
July 31, 2006

Practice Area:
Car / Auto Accident

Outcome:
Win at Trial. No appeal was filed.

Description: 
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (Hon. Paul P. Panepinto) where Mr. Rosentrater represented the defendant (driver #1) in a stipulated negligence motor vehicle action. Plaintiff (driver #2) originally won $35,000 at a previous common pleas arbitration. Mr. Rosentrater appealed the arbitration award and obtained a complete defense verdict on behalf of Mr. Rosentrater's client at a Philadelphia jury trial. No appeal was ever filed by plaintiff.