Picadio, Sneath, Miller & Norton - 412-288-4000

Norton on Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (PBI Press)

4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702

Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405
Email

Print This Page

Contact Us

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

Pittsburgh Office

4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702

Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a general litigation firm with concentrated litigation experience in the areas including business litigation, environmental law, insurance coverage and bad faith, construction law, financial fraud and investor litigation, and tort litigation . With offices in Pittsburgh, our attorneys serve clients in courts throughout Pennsylvania. If you have a question about our legal services or if you would like to schedule an appointment with one of our skilled lawyers, please call the number listed above, or complete the form below to send us an e-mail. We appreciate your interest in the services provided by our law firm.

NOTE: The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any indiviual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. An asterisk (*) indicates REQUIRED information.

*Name:
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
*Email Address:

*How would you like to be contacted?
Email Phone		Fax Postal Mail

Brief description of your legal issue:

Latest Business and Legal News

These news items and case summaries are a service provided by FindLaw. Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. does not endorse any service or product advertised or discussed in any of these items.

Business

[08/29] Help-wanted ad for nanny: `My kids are a pain'

Intellectual Property

[08/11] Poof! Scientists closer to invisibility cloak

Insurance

[08/15] Former half-ton man endures hard times in Nebraska

Environment

[09/03] Cat survives 70-mile trip under owner's truck

More...

Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[09/04] Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. v. Apotex, Inc.
In an action arising from alleged infringement of plaintiff's patent for the drug Risperdal, dismissal of defendant's counterclaims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where no actual and continuing injuries to defendant existed regarding: 1) its ability to promptly launch its generic risperidone product and compete in the market immediately upon the expiration of plaintiff's patent; 2) delay of approval of its noninfringing generic risperidone product; and 3) patent uncertainty resulting from the coverage of a covenant-not-to-sue.

More...

Insurance Law

[08/29] Ulico Cas. Co. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n
In a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff-insurer did not have coverage and did not owe defendant's defense costs for a suit against defendant-insured, judgment notwithstanding a jury verdict in favor of defendant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) an insurer's contractual coverage under a claims-made policy can be expanded by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel to cover a risk not otherwise within the policy coverage, namely a suit against the insured that was not reported until after the policy expired; but 2) the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be used to re-write the contract of insurance and provide contractual coverage for risks not insured.

More...

Environmental Law

[09/03] Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Johnson
In a matter brought under the Clean Water Act (CWA), judgment of district court in favor of defendant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) with respect to plaintiffs' challenge to the EPA's approval of Kentucky's categorical exemption of six types of pollution discharges from Tier II review, though the EPA's decision document details the tests conducted to measure each exemption's impact, the document often fails to include the resulting measurements; 2) court cannot review this legal conclusion's reasonableness without the EPA first discussing its assimilative-capacity loss estimates and explaining why it deems them insignificant; 3) EPA's approval of Kentucky's classification of certain waters as eligible for Tier I protection rather than Tier II protection was not arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. Case is remanded to EPA so that it may address the deficiencies in its consideration of state's de minimis exemptions.

More...

Commercial Law

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

More...

Disclaimer | Site Map