Benjamin J. Mayerson
Top rated Personal Injury attorney in Pottstown, Pennsylvania
Practice Areas:
Insurance coverage,
Appellate,
Bad faith insurance,
Brain injury,
Construction accident,
Insurance defense,
Premises liability - plaintiff,
Trucking accidents,
Wrongful death
Education Qualification:
Widener University – Delaware Law School
Practice Areas:
Insurance coverage,
Appellate,
Bad faith insurance,
Brain injury,
Construction accident,
Insurance defense,
Premises liability - plaintiff,
Trucking accidents,
Wrongful death
1 North Sunnybrook RoadPottstown, Pennsylvania, 19464
First Admitted: 1994, Pennsylvania
Professional Webpage: https://www.mayersoninjurylaw.com/our-team/benjamin-j-mayers...
Bar/Professional Activity:
- Member of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice
- Chester County Bar Association, Member
- Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA), Member
- American Association for Justice (formally known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA)), Member
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania
- Member of the Montgomery County Bar Association
Verdicts/Settlements (Case Results):
- A disabled man slipped on an ice covered sidewalk caused by a broken downspout. The tenant in possession of the commercial property had placed a bucket to capture rain from the downspout which had foreseeably overflowed. The liability carrier denied the claim because the property owner claimed to be unaware of the defect and would have repaired it had the tenant identified the defect. We used Google Earth (in 2015) to identify photographs of the defect, with the bucket, dating back to 2013, when a prior tenant occupied the commercial premise. The case promptly settled for $150,000, 2015
- I represented a man who came to the aid of his son who ran out of gas on Route 422 bypass when the man was struck by a vehicle as he was filling his son's car with gasoline from a gas can he was holding. I collected the $100,000 liability limits from the insurer for the striking vehicle, then the $250,000 limits of Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage on the vehicle our client was touching with the gas can, then the $100,000 UIM limits from the insurer of our client's resident girlfriend, and then an additional $250,000 in UIM coverage on our client's coverage on his ATV vehicles that surprisingly also carried UIM benefits. Total compensation for my client was $700,000. We were unable to show any loss of earning capacity as our client continued to operate his roofing business without any loss despite sustaining a serious injury to his leg that was nearly amputated at the scene of the accident by the force of the collision. Fortunately, his surgery was successful in saving the use of his leg, 2017
- I represented an on-duty police officer rear-ended at a high rate of speed by a 1996 Nissan Sentra. We had to file suit because the 1996 Nissan Sentra carried only $100,000 in liability coverage and although the operator denied that he was working as a parcel delivery person for a major parcel delivery service, we suspected he was on route to deliver packages at the time of loss because he made a phone call from the scene of the accident for his parcels to be picked up by another delivery person. We thus filed suit and filed a motion to secure an order to secure his cellular phone records to identify the outfit he telephoned from the scene of the accident. The operator also had a long history of driving infractions and had recently had his driver's license restored following suspension. We were able to reach a settlement just prior to trial for $1.6 million, 2019
- I represented a couple involved in a single vehicle motorcycle crash within a construction zone where a contractor was resurfacing the 4-lane highway. The contractor blamed my client for the loss. I filed suit and, after numerous depositions of company personnel, proved that the height differential between the two northbound lanes, caused by the resurfacing of one lane, was greater than industry standards permit, that even a 4-wheel vehicle could lose control and crash if it attempted to change lanes, that the differential was so great that the contractor knew or should have known of the danger, that the danger had been present for five days prior to our clients' loss because the contractor wanted to remove more asphalt along the highway prior to bringing in the asphalt team, and that the contractor had taken no measures to counsel its employees about the harm caused prior to settlement. The case settled after the pre-trial conference for $575,000 with considerable pressure from the trial judge after the trial judge ruled that punitive damages were not appropriate. No offer was made prior to litigation. The contractor has now implemented warning signs for motorcycle operators within its construction zones when there is a height differential between travel lanes, 2018
- Berg v. Nationwide, 235 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2020). In an insurance bad faith action, arising from a $25,000 first party collision loss claim, Berks County Trial Court Judge Jeffrey Sprecher awarded my clients $18 million in punitive damages, plus $3 million in attorney fees, against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The verdict was entered June 21, 2014, vacated by a split panel of the Superior Court, which was affirmed by an evenly divided Supreme Court. Id. The case began September 4, 1996, when Sherri Berg was involved in a highspeed motor vehicle collision. A claim was submitted to her insurer, Nationwide Mutual. Nationwide recommended the Bergs have their collision claim appraised and repaired by one of its designated Blue Ribbon repair facilities, through its Blue Ribbon Repair Program. Nationwide promised a Blue Ribbon appraisal, from a Blue Ribbon repair facility, backed by a Blue Ribbon guarantee. Unbeknownst to the Bergs, the vehicle was originally appraised as a structural total loss due to a twisted frame. Instead of reporting the total loss to the Bergs, as required by state law, Nationwide directed the vehicle be transported to an undisclosed, unapproved repair facility to attempt the frame repairs that its Blue Ribbon facility was unable to undertake. Four months later the vehicle was returned to the Bergs in a dangerous condition, with hidden structural repair failures. The evidence supported the trial court's finding that Nationwide was aware of the structural repair failures per routine inspections it performed throughout the extended, 4-month repair period. Nationwide nevertheless permitted the vehicle to be returned to the Bergs with hidden structural repair failures causing the tires to wear down to the metal belts. When the Bergs learned of the extensive, structural repair failures and retained legal representation, Nationwide implemented its well-documented strategy to price us out of the litigation by concealing evidence through a false claim of attorney client privilege. After six years of appellate review this firm won a new trial during which it was proven that Nationwide paid its own attorneys in excess of $3 million to defend its fraudulent/deceitful handling of the underlying collision claim, in what can only be described as a reprehensible attempt to price this firm out of securing justice for the Bergs. Notwithstanding the 20-plus years of litigation, hundreds of thousands of dollars in hard file costs, and the Courts' evenly divided resolution, it remains the most intense legal battle of my 30-year practice. To learn more about the trial court opinion please see: Verdict Judgment Findings of Fact and Law Supreme Court Opinion Superior Court Opinion Associated Press News Article You can also get more information in this news article!, 2014
Representative Clients:
- My clients are people in my community of all ages and socio economic backgrounds.
Pro bono/Community Service:
- I routinely offer free legal advise to people involved in motor vehicle collisions and premise liability matters. Of course this is not merely out of good will but also because it often generates future business from referrals and from those people I have helped in the past for no fee. For instance, in a premise case I assist people with submitting a claim for "med pay benefits" that are almost always available under any commercial liability policy without regard to "fault." In motor vehicle collisions, I often assist people in my community with resolution of their property damage claims even where there is no injury or minimal injury or their limited tort status precludes an injury claim. I will also assist with other claims available under their own policy that they may not be aware of, such as wage loss benefits and securing more rental coverage when the liability carrier tells them it will only pay for 3 days, etc.
Honors/Awards:
- I was admitted to the Million Dollar Advocates Forum after winning my first verdict in excess of $1 million, Life Member, Million Dollar Advocates Forum
- The National Trial Lawyers: Top 25 Motor Vehicle Trial Lawyers Association, Member
- Avvo is a national company that rates attorneys across the country, asserting it has rated 97% of US lawyers, Avvo Rating of 10 out of 10, Avvo
Educational Background:
- Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Psychology, with minor in English Literature, 1991
Scholarly Lectures/Writings:
- I was invited to lecture on the subject of insurer bad faith. The panel, in addition to myself, included a prominent insurance defense attorney and another claimant attorney, Panel Member, Lecturer on Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, Pennsylvania Association for Justice, Insurance Policy Holders, Insurers, And Attorneys, 2015
Other Outstanding Achievements:
- Published Opinion of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania finding the amount of money an insurance company paid its defense attorneys to defend an insurance bad faith lawsuit was relevant and admissible to the disputed issue of whether the insurer had implemented against its insured a strategy to price its insured out of court. The insurer was ordered to present a trial witness who testified that the insurer had paid its attorneys $2.5 million to defend the lawsuit arising out of a $25,000 collision claim dispute. See Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 44 A.3d 1164 (Pa. Super. 2012). This ruling was not reversed on appeal and means large product manufacturers may be required disclose amounts it is paying to defend meritorious lawsuits over product defects where there exists evidence of a strategy to price the injured plaintiff out of court. See also Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 235 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2020), where an evenly divided Supreme Court affirmed a divided Superior Court panel opinion vacating the trial court's judgment on other grounds., 2012
- Opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that helped develop Pennsylvania Appellate Rule 1925(b) which requires the appellant to file and serve the trial court judge with a copy of a timely filed Concise Statement of Errors which itemizes the issues to be raised on appeal. In my case we timely filed the Concise Statement of Errors and requested the location of the judge's chambers for service. The court staff declined to provide the location of the judge's chambers but insisted the judge only wanted the original document and that the original would be delivered to the judge within 10 minutes. The judge quashed the appeal for failing to serve him. I filed a Petition to Enlarge the Record to reflect the fact that the court staff refused to provide the location of the judge and that the judge received the original document ten minutes after it was timely filed. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal. I filed an Application for Review in the Supreme Court which was granted. The Court reversed and remanded back to the Superior Court to rule on the merits of our appeal. The Superior Court then reversed the trial court on every issue raised on appeal and remanded back to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of insurer bad faith. The new trial judge ultimately found the insurer liable for bad faith and entered a $21 million judgment against the insurer. See Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 6 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2010). The trial court's judgment was reversed on other grounds by an evenly divided Supreme Court, affirming a divided panel of the Superior Court. See Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 235 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2020)., 2010
Contact Benjamin
All the below fields are required