Contracts

July 23rd, 2019 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

CONTRACTS-EMPLOYMENT Estate of Accurso v. Infra-Red Services, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5223 (3rd Cir. February 20, 2020) Greenaway, Jr., C.J.  Third Circuit affirmed district court in part reversed and remanded for determination of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.  At issue was employment status.  A jury determined that Plaintiff was entitled to damages.  At issue were a number of things including attorneys’ fees.  The court went through the standard analysis for whether employment existed.  The district court’s determination on Summary Judgment that Plaintiff was an employee was affirmed. The court also ruled district court would be affirmed on denial of attorneys’ fees and punitive damages for prevailing on the PUTSA claim. CONTRACTS-INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR-UBER BLACK DRIVERS Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6674 (3d Cir. March 3, 2020) Greenaway, Jr., C.J.  This case says that a finding of fact has to make the decision as to whether drivers for Uber Black are employees or independent contractors within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar Pennsylvania state laws.  The District Court opinion granting summary judgment was therefore vacated and the matter…

Fair Credit Billing Act – Billing Errors

June 4th, 2018 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Krieger v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 17-1275 (3d Cir. May 16, 2018) Krause, C.J.  The same day Appellant William Krieger fell victim to a credit card scam and discovered a fraudulent $657 charge on his bill, he protested to his card issuer, Bank of America (BANA), 1 and was told both that the charge would be removed and that, pending “additional information,” BANA considered the matter resolved. And indeed, Krieger’s next bill reflected a $657 credit. But over a month later Krieger opened his mail to some particularly unwelcome additional information: BANA was rebilling him for the charge. He disputed it again, this time in writing, but after BANA replied that nothing would be done, he paid his monthly statement and then filed this action, alleging BANA violated two consumer protection laws: the Fair Credit Billing Act, which requires a creditor to take certain steps to correct billing errors, and the unauthorized-use provision of the Truth in Lending Act, which limits a credit cardholder’s liability for the unauthorized use of a credit card to $50. The District Court granted BANA’s motion to dismiss the operative complaint after determining Krieger…

Contracts: Exculpatory Provision Clause

May 15th, 2018 by Rieders Travis in Contracts

Vinson v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 430 (May 4, 2018), McLaughlin, J. The crux of both of Vinson's issues lies in her contention that the Exculpatory Clause is invalid because it contravenes public policy. Vinson specifically asserts that her claim involves a vital matter of public health and safety. She argues that her cause of action involves the maintenance of facilities, which concerns the obvious health and safety of members of the public. To this end, she relies upon Leidy v. Deseret Enterprises, Inc., 252 Pa. Super. 162, 381 A.2d 164 (Pa.Super. 1977) (vacating grant of judgment on pleadings where plaintiffs had pleaded that exculpatory [*7]  provision in spa contract was unconscionable). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that HN3 exculpatory provisions in contracts are valid where three conditions are met: "First, the clause must not contravene public policy. Secondly, the contract must be between persons relating entirely to their own private affairs and thirdly, each party must be a free bargaining agent to the agreement so that the contract is not one of adhesion." [*9]  Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 607 Pa. 1, 2…