Eckman v. Erie Insurance Exchange
21 A.3d 1203
Pa. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Eckmans appealing denial of a preliminary injunction seeking Erie to pay for their chosen counsel in the Mascaro defamation action.
- Mascaro sued Eckmans for defamation per se; suit sought >$50,000 plus punitive damages.
- Erie acknowledged defense but reserved rights due to policy exclusions for intentional acts/punitive damages.
- Eckman retained Hambur(g) & Rubin as conflict-of-interest concerns arose; Erie instead hired McCormick & Priore.
- Trial court found no basis to issue relief; Erie’s defense remained under reservation of rights.
- Superior Court affirms, holding Eckmans failed to prove any prerequisite for a preliminary injunction and that Pennsylvania law controls; out-of-state authority rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the injunction prerequisites | Eckmans: conflict of interest warrants relief | Erie: no clear right or irreparable harm shown | No; prerequisites not met; upheld denial |
| Whether a conflict of interest existed for Erie-chosen counsel | Eckmans claim implied per se conflict | Erie counsel not shown to breach ethics; third-party payor duties explained | No reversible conflict under current law |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 573 Pa. 637 (Pa. 2003) (preliminary injunction standards; 'apparently reasonable grounds' test; six prerequisites)
- Widener University v. Fred S. James & Co., Inc., 537 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 1988) (duty to defend insurer; right to select counsel; non-binding on PA law if incompatible with PA precedents)
- Dixon v. GEICO, 1 A.3d 921 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stare decisis; binding PA precedent unless superseded by Supreme Court)