Court Said Arthur Alan Wolk and The Wolk Law Firm Acted ''Honestly and In Good Faith'': Arthur Wolk Shares Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Opinion on Pennsylvania Superior Court's Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div

Share Article

In response to a question about a previous and now outdated court case, aviation attorney Arthur Alan Wolk made public today the fact that he and his firm, The Wolk Law Firm, have been totally exonerated from a long past criticism made by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in an opinion authored by the Honorable Sandra Mazer Moss of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. In her opinion (see: http://arthuralanwolk.com/_wsn/page3.html), rendered on January 31, 2006, Judge Moss cited facts established on the record showing that the Superior Court's criticism of Wolk were completely unwarranted in the case of Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., No. 003079, Control No. 012169, 2006 WL 891072 (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia County Jan. 31, 2006). Judge Moss' opinion was entered by stipulation after defense counsel who made the charges was removed from managing Precision Airmotive's defense.

honestly made, in good faith, and with no intent to defraud or mislead.

    In the case of Eigen v. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., May Term, 2001, No. 003079 (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia County), Wolk represented the victims of an airplane crash that occurred at the Mount Snow Airport in Mount Snow, Vermont on May 28, 1999. The complaint alleged the accident happened in part due to a defective Precision Airmotive (a.k.a. Marvel-Schebler) carburetor. After two weeks of trial, the denial of Precision's motion for nonsuit on punitive damages and the revelation that a mechanic misleadingly testified on the witness stand, Precision and the other defendants in the lawsuit entered into a settlement with Wolk. Subsequently, only the attorneys for defendant Precision Airmotive reneged on the settlement and alleged Wolk fraudulently induced them to settle the Eigen claims by concealing an insurance policy alleged to cover the pilot for claims of pilot error. Precision, through its trial attorneys, attempted to hold Wolk and his client responsible for damages. The trial court rejected Precision's arguments outright; however, on appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued an opinion reversing the trial court and remanding for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. On remand and after discovery of defense counsel's communications with his client and within the firm were ordered by a special discovery master, Judge Moss entered an opinion determining that Wolk and his law firm's responses to discovery were "honestly made, in good faith, and with no intent to defraud or mislead." The court also cited to evidence and testimony showing that Precision's attorneys actually knew of the insurance policy claimed to have been hidden and made a conscious decision not to pursue the policy. That evidence was withheld from the Superior Court by defense counsel before it issued its critical opinion. In a precedent setting event every other defense lawyer in the case and the insurance carriers for the other defendants all came to Wolk's aid in refuting the baseless claim made by a disgruntled lawyer who was removed by Precision from managing its defense.

The evidence also showed that Precision's defense counsel reported to his client during the trial that "Wolk is a very good cross examiner", a "formidable opponent", and he "crucified" a witness on cross. In addition, Precision criticized its trial attorneys because "they are scared of the downside of these cases especially with Wolk as the plaintiff lawyer - and want to open the check book and settle". The evidence also showed that contrary to affidavits filed with the Court, Precision's defense counsel not only knew about the pilot's insurance policy, but had actually established communication with the carrier by mail. The letter between defense counsel and the carrier was never produced during discovery by Precision's lawyers but was obtained from the carrier directly. It was also shown that the very same lawyer for Precision had refused to honor another settlement for the same client and later had to pay everything that he had agreed to pay as a result of another lawsuit. The defendant Precision not only paid the Eigen settlement in full plus interest to Wolk's clients but also agreed never to conduct itself in that manner with Wolk, his firm or his clients again.

The Wolk Law Firm has a 40-year reputation for excellence in air crash litigation for plaintiffs and regularly serves as the trial counsel to which other lawyers refer aviation cases. Arthur Alan Wolk is also pleased to serve as an advisor to the air crash litigation bar.

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Arthur Alan Wolk
Visit website