The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-4171 FU: '2 ICU: 11 I.i 6;' ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik. Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street I larrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosiknangino-rovner.com NAJWA KASSEM Plaintiff V. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. IZI, -111(7( Pj JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 441357 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en ]as paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notification y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 441357 NAJWA KASSEM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Najwa Kassem is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who resides at 6352 Mercury Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "Travelers") is a Connecticut corporation whose corporate headquarters are located at One Tower Square, Hartford, Connecticut 06183 and who regularly does business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff Najwa Kassem was insured by Travelers at the time of an automobile accident she was involved in on October 9, 2006. 4. The Travelers policy of insurance provided for the payment of first-party medical benefits, in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1701 et. sec 5. On October 9, 2006, Plaintiff Najwa Kassem was merging onto Route 15 North on an entrance ramp but was required to yield and stop because of traffic. 441357 6. After having stopped for traffic, Plaintiff was rear ended by another vehicle which had been traveling directly behind her. 7. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Plaintiff Najwa Kassem sustained painful and severe injuries which included but are not limited to neck pain with headaches, back pain with spasm and left knee pain. 8. Plaintiff Najwa Kassem continues to suffer from injuries arising from the accident which has been confirmed in an independent medical examination which was performed by Dr. David N. Basacco on behalf of Travelers in December 2007. 9. Dr. Basacco, on behalf of Travelers, confirmed that Plaintiff Najwa Kassem sustained cervical and lumbar strain/sprain with exacerbation of cervical and lumbar disc disease and contusions of the left knee with exacerbation of patellar chondromalacia. 10. Dr. Basacco, on behalf of Travelers, confirmed that these injuries and diagnosis are related to the motor vehicle accident on October 9, 2006 and that as of December 6, 2007, the condition or diagnosis has not resolved. 11. As a result of the injuries to her cervical spine Plaintiff Najwa Kassem failed to respond to conservative treatment and her treating orthopedic physician, Dr. Raymond Dahl, performed a disk replacement arthroplasty at C5-C6 surgery on March 15, 2010. 12. In spite of Defendant Travelers having Plaintiff Najaw Kassem's own treating physician records and recommendations as well as Dr. Basacco's December 6, 2007 report and examination, Defendant Travelers has denied medical bills for Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's surgery and ongoing treatment. 13. Defendant Travelers paid all Najwa Kassem's accident-related bills up to the date of the surgery and has refused to pay bills for Plaintiff's ongoing treatment. 44137 14. All of Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's medical bills were incurred for reasonable and necessary surgery and rehabilitative services for the injuries which she sustained in the October 9, 2006 accident. 15. Plaintiff Najwa Kassem further alleges that she had to engage counsel, and counsel has had to expend considerable time in research, correspondence, preparation, etc. To date, counsel has also incurred expenses in obtaining Plaintiffs medical records, bills and doctor's reports. Counsel will have to expend additional time and expense in the future in an attempt to obtain recovery for the medical bills as provided under the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. 16. Defendant Travelers have refused to pay Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's medical care as required by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et. sec .. 17. Defendant Travelers has breached its contract with Plaintiff Najwa Kassem to pay all accident-related medical bills in accordance with the terms and provisions of the aforesaid automobile insurance policy whereby Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's first-party medical coverage is $100,000.00. 18. Because of Defendant Travelers failure to pay Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's medical bills is without reasonable foundation and because Defendant acted in an unreasonable manner, Plaintiff Najwa Kassem is entitled to recover her attorney's fees, costs, and interest accruing in the amount of 12% on her unpaid bills and expenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Najwa Kessem demands judgment from Defendant Travelers for first-party medical benefits, together with interest and counsel fees, expenses, an amount in 441357 excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars exclusive of interest and costs. qN--R3, P.C. AI.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff 441357 VERIFICATION I, NAJWA KASSEM, do swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I ur=uersta^' that this verification is made subject to the penalties of the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. W S. A W" VKASSEM Dated: ? U"- Z I Z 01 U 203648 4 r ~(~~Q ~}~~ 2~ t~~ Z~ ~~ PENNSYL~'~N+~ ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street H~rricbure, PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com NAJWA KASSEM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 10-4171 TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE This is to certify that on the June 23, 2010 a true and correct copy of the Complaint to Civil Action No. 10-4171 was mailed to Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, One Tower Sauare Hartford, CT 06183 by certified mail, return receipt requested No. 7007 2560 0001 2298 1969. A copy of the certified mail receipt is attached hereto. Michelle. M. Milo~evlch 443432 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above-noted Complaint was served upon the Travelers Personal Security Insurance company via certified mail, return receipt requested at the above-noted address on June 25, 2010. A copy of the signed receipt No: 7007 2560 0001 2298 1969 is attached hereto. r iviiclellc a. I/1;1o e~;ich Sworn to and subscribed before me thisc2~ of , 2010. ~ ~ ..- Ir Notary Public ~ Postage S ~ l;enifled Fee ~ Retum Receipt Fee i~l~ O (EndtxsemeM Required) CMRiSTii~ M QALL Restrkted Delivery Fee ^ (Endorsement Required) T~ ~~~~ C~~ .~ Ct11Bll~ftital! ~~ Mu i Q, 21D18 ~ Total Postage & Fees fL ~ nt o ~ ----~ ~: p 3`neet A7o:; .. ~ orPO Box fVo. ^ Complete hems 1, 2, and 3. Also complete ~ 4 ff Restricted Delivery is desired. ^ Print your. name and address on the reverse so that we can return the cans to you. + Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the frorrt ff space permits. Article Addressed to: ~~~~ .~ Ohe To~~ S~u,av~ b( C~7" (7~/ 8`3 iAL 41 E Postmark Here ~ Q ~~~ rl^^ ~~U I~~ t a signature X B. R by C. Date D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ^ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ^ No 3. SeMce Type ~ertltied Mail ^ Express Mail ^ Registered ~tetum Receipt for March ^ Insuured Mall ^ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ^ Y~ 443432 2. Article lMrrMa 7 0 0 7 2 5 6 0 ~ 01 2 2 9 8 19 6 9 (TiarrsAr>torp trreMo~ wba4 PS Form 3R~t 4, i~abrtrerr a004 Don~sUc t'MMm FNo«pt tt>Q^so2-M-tsto KENT & MCBRIDE, By:Ernest F. Koschine Damian M. San Identification No. 833 1617 John F. Kennedy Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 191U (215)568-1800 File No: 969-64903 Esquire ions, Esquire 94198 NAJWA KASS.EM VS. TRAVELERS SECURITY Ir AL ~E COMPANY Attorney for Defendants, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY ,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO.: 10-4171 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE Kindly enter our in the above-captioned ARY: n T~ ~, -; :_" ~,: ~: ~~~ ~. ~..... .,k . , ,, .~ ~ `~ ~, C7 c;.- ~' ~Z sl ~~n.~ ~: _'f f~~r °~~ 4.. ~,.~s. f- ,.V 1~} ~: on behalf of Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company KENT & McBRIDE, P.C. Dated: BY: ` rnest F. Kos hi eg, Esquire Attorney for Def dant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company BY Dated: Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company 1.~:i ~~ ' i . YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND NEW MATTER CROSSCLAIMS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY i ~ ~ S YOU. c TTO R DEFEND , avele ers ecurity Insurance Co. KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. By: ERNEST F. KOSCHINEG, ESQUIRE DAMIAN M. SAMMONS, ESQUIRE Identification No. 83350/94198 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)568-1800 File No: 969-64903 NAJWA KASSEM Attorney for Defendants, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY ,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION VS. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY NO.: 10-4171 DEFENDANT, TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company by and through its attorneys, Kent & McBride, P.C. hereby responds to Plaintiff's Complaint and avers as follows: 1. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied as stated. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiff's' Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial 5. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 6. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 8. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. -2- 9. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. -3- 16. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the. corresponding pazagraphs of Plaintiff's' Complaint aze automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraphs of Plaintiff's' Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint aze automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendant, after reasonable investigation, presently lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in the corresponding pazagraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. -4- WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant hereby demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs, attorney's fees and other relief as just and reasonable. NEW MATTER 1. Plaintiff s claims fail to state any cause of action against Answering Defendant upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the Statutes of Limitations and/or Laches. 3. Plaintiff s claims are barred due to improper service of process. 4. Plaintiff s claims are barred because of the doctrine of waiver and/or estoppel. 5. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the virtue of the terms of an express release. 6. Defendant fulfilled any alleged duty or obligations toward the Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the appropriate provisions of the No-Fault Act and/or Financial Responsibility Act. 8. Plaintiff did not represent her claim in accordance with the MVFRL. 9. Plaintiff s treatment was not reasonable and necessary. 10. Defendant does not owe benefits to Plaintiff. 11. Plaintiff has not fulfilled statutory obligations precedent to the payment of the benefits under the applicable policy of insurance. 12. Plaintiff is not an eligible claimant under the applicable policy of insurance. 13. Plaintiff is not an insured under the applicable policy of insurance. 14. Plaintiff s injuries are unrelated to the accident of October 9, 2006. -5- 15. Defendant never breached any promise or contractual obligations, either expressed or implied, to Plaintiff. 16. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees or costs. 17. Defendant fulfilled all of its duties and obligations, whether arising from common law, statute, contract or otherwise. 18. Defendant did not breach any duty or obligation of any kind whether arising from common law, statute, contract or otherwise. 19. Defendant complied with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. 20. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any and all claims set forth in her Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant hereby demands judgment in its favor and against all other parties, together with costs, attorney's fees and other relief as just and reasonable. Respectfully submitted, KENT & 1•~cBRI$E.~ By: 1'ravele~ Personal Security Insurance Company Dated: -6- VERIFICATION I, Damian M. Sammons, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company; that I am authorized to take this Verification on its behalf; and I hereby aver that the facts set forth in the Answer of Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, to Plaintiff's Complaint set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Further, I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. By: ERNEST F. KOSCHINEG, ESQUIRE DAMIAN M. SAMMONS, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION N0:83350/ 200269 1617 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. SUITE 1200 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 568-1800 FILE NO: 969-64903 NAJWA KASSEM PLAINTIFF, VS. TRAVELERS SECURITY INSURANCE CO. DEFENDANT. Attorneys for Defendant, Travelers Security Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO: 08-3724 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Damian M. Sammons, Esquire, hereby certify that this ~l~ay of August, 2010, a true and correct copy of the within Answer of Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, to Plaintiff's Complaint was served on all parties of record by first-class mail, postage prepaid below: Michael E. Kosik, Esquire 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 ay: KENT & McBRLBE;~.C. Attorneys Travelers Insurance Co. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1799 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik(& ,angino-rovner.com NAJWA KASSEM Plaintiff Off `'E' S??' IIIA Y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-4171 CIVIL TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Plaintiff Najwa Kassem, by and through her attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., respectfully move this Honorable Court to compel the Defendant to file full and complete answers to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories for the following reasons: 1. This first-party claim was initiated by Complaint on June 21, 2010. 2. On August 10, 2010, Plaintiff's propounded Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company (hereinafter "Travelers"). A copy of Plaintiff's Interrogatories are attached as Exhibit A and Plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents is attached as Exhibit B. 3. On December 9, 2010, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Travelers requesting Answers to Discovery so that depositions could be scheduled. 4. On January 17, 2011, February 14, 2011, and March 21, 2011, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Travelers requesting Answers to Discovery. 470990 2 5. On March 23, 2011, Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Discovery requests. Said answers are attached hereto as Exhibit C. 6. On April 7, 2011, Plaintiff wrote to Defendant Travelers requesting complete answers and responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. See Plaintiff's Counsel's letter of April 7, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit D. 7. Plaintiff requested a copy of the "Best Practices" manual and Pa. Motor Vehicle Responsibility Manual in response to Interrogatory #10. 8. Plaintiff's counsel pointed out that Defendant objected to 15 out of 18 requests for documents, however, the document requests were typical of document requests in first-party cases. 9. Defendant then attempted to answer, without waiving the objection, by referring to documents attached without identifying the documents in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12(b)(1) and (2). 10. Request for Production of Documents No. 3 requests the entire first-party file upon which the suit is based and Defendant responded that Plaintiff's request was "overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial." 11. Plaintiff maintains that the request for the first-party file is the core of the case and is no more objectionable than a request for any statements which Plaintiff requests in request No. 4, to which Defendant responded with the same boilerplate objection. 12. Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's counsel brought to Defendant's attention that no privilege log was provided in response to the Response to Request for Production of Documents as required by Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12(b)(2). 470990 3 13. On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff again wrote to Defendant Travelers requesting that they supply Plaintiff with complete answers and responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. See Plaintiff's counsel's letter of April 28, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit E. 14. Plaintiff's counsel sent a copy of this Motion to Compel without attachments to defense counsel via Email on May 31, 2011 requesting concurrence or nonconcurrence with the Motion. See Plaintiff's counsel's Email dated May 31, 2011 attached as Exhibit F. 15. Counsel for Defendant Travelers requested until June 7, 2011 to respond. 16. On June 22, 2011, Plaintiff's counsel again Emailed defense counsel requesting a response to the Motion to Compel and/or responses to the discovery. See Plaintiff's counsel's Email of June 22, 2011 attached hereto as Exhibit G. 17. Defense counsel again requested more time and a copy of Plaintiffs counsel's letter of April 7, 2011 which was scanned and Emailed to defense counsel on July 13, 2011. 18. No response has been provided by Defendant Travelers or it's counsel. 19. Plaintiffs counsel's most recent letter advised that if responses to discovery were not provided by August 15, 2011, the Motion to Compel would be filed. A copy of Plaintiff s counsel's letter of July 29, 2011 is attached hereto as Exhibit H. 20. No response has been received nor has any additional responses to discovery been provided in over 4 (four) months. 21. As of the date of this Motion, Defendant Travelers has failed to respond to Plaintiff s request. 22. All of the Discovery sought by Plaintiff through her Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents are relevant to the instant action. 470990 4 23. Pa.R.C.P. 4019 provides that upon motion of a party, the Court can make an appropriate order when a party "fails to make discovery." Pa.R.C.P 4019(a)(viii). 24. Plaintiff is represented by Michael E. Kosik, Esquire of the firm Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110,(717)238-6791. 25. Defendant is represented by Damian Sammons, Esquire of the firm Kent & McBride, P.C., 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 568- 1800. '26. No other Judge has ruled upon any other issue in the same or related matter on this case. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order scheduling a status conference to schedule deadlines as well as an order to compel Defendant Travelers to provide complete answers and responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. P.C. Michael E. Kosik I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff 470990 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Damian Sammons, Esquire Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-1800 Attorney for Defendant k?- Michelle M. Milojevich Dated: A q 06 l,l 470990 6 000- EXHIBIT A ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com NAJWA KASSEM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-4171 TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY TO: Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company Damian Sammons, Esquire Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 392230 I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiffs, through their attorney, hereby propound the following Interrogatories to Defendants pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 to be answered within thirty (30) days from service thereof. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing. If between the time of your answers to said Interrogatories and the time of trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf learn the identity and whereabouts of any other witnesses not identified in your said answers, or if you obtain or become aware of additional requested information not supplied in your answers, you shall promptly furnish the same to Plaintiffs attorney by supplemental answers. For the purposes of these Interrogatories, "you" or "your" refers to the Defendants and their files, the Defendants' insurance company and its files the Defendants' attorney and his files and all other persons, agents, or representatives of the Defendants and their files. "You" shall further include all persons on whose behalf Defendants prosecute this action and all persons who will benefit or be legally bound by the results of this action. Your answers to the Interrogatories shall reflect and contain the knowledge of all of the above persons. References to Plaintiff and/or Defendant shall be interpreted as singular or plural, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. The term "description" or "describe" as used herein shall mean that the Defendants shall set forth the name and address of the author or originator, dates, title, or subject matter, the present custodians of the original and of any copies, and last known address of each custodian. "Document" shall mean any written, printed, typed or other graphic matter of any kind, whether handwritten, typed, or printed, whether distributed or undistributed. It shall include, without limitation, letters, memoranda, articles, studies, notebooks, diaries, and notes, as well as all mechanical and electronic sound recordings or transcripts thereof in the possession or control of the Defendants or known by them to exist. It shall also mean all copies of documents by whatever means is made. Answer each Interrogatory in the space following the Interrogatory. Supplemental sheets may be attached for answers which require additional space. Please take notice that you are required to serve upon the undersigned your answers in writing within thirty (30) days pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006. These Interrogatories should be deemed continuing, and supplemental answers should be reasonably provided. 392230 I . State, with respect to the Defendant, the following: (a) Full name of company; (b) Address of home office; (c) Address of claim office handling Plaintiffs claim; (d) Name of claim agent(s) handling Plaintiffs claim; and (e) Claim number of Plaintiffs claim. Answer: 392230 2. Did Defendant, or anyone acting on its behalf, conduct an investigation into the incident which forms the basis of this lawsuit? If so, please provide a copy of the investigation, including the name, address, and job title of the person who prepared the investigation and the date that it was prepared. Answer: 392230 Please state the procedure involved in determining to pay or deny a first-party benefit claim and the title or job description of the person responsible for such an analysis. Identify any individuals involved in Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's claim. Answer: 392230 4. Is there any supervision review or discussions in cases of denial of benefits by anyone other than the person identified in answer to Interrogatory #3. If so, please state: (a) Who was involved in the supervision, review, or discussion, or decision; (b) When it took place; (c) The results; and (d) If the results were reduced to writing, please identify the document containing the writing. Answer: 392230 5. Please identify any claims manuals, instructions, training materials or other documentation available to be reviewed or relied upon by any individual identified in Interrogatory #3 and 4 Answer: 392230 Please identify completely any medical records or reports of the Plaintiff Najwa Kassem in your possession at the time the claim was denied and the manner in which they were obtained. Answer: 392230 7. State the name, address, and occupation of any person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, and with regard thereto, state: (a) The subject matter on which the expert is to testify; (b) The facts and opinions to which the expert is to testify; (c) A summary of the grounds of each opinion; (d) The name of any report, memorandum, or transcript used to substantiate each opinion; (e) Any standard scientific principle alleged by the expert to have been violated, in whole or in part; and (f) The date, name, and author of any textbook, document, or other source relied upon by the expert in rendering his opinion and testimony. Answer: 392230 8. With regard to each individual you expect to call as an expert witness at trial, state the following: (a) Date of birth; (b) Name and address of present employer, and if self-employed, name and address of the business; (c) Full and formal educational background, with dates of attendance and degrees obtained; (d) A list of all writings and/or documents of any kind prepared in whole or in part by the expert; and (e) Names and addresses of all persons, firms, or corporations, who have retained this expert in the past ten years to render a report or testify as an expert witness. Answer: 392230 Why is Defendant denying or refusing payment of Plaintiff s first-party medical benefits? Please explain in detail the reason(s) for denying the payments. Answer: 392230 10. Please state the education and training required and training programs for first-party benefits claims adjusters involved in Plaintiff Najwa Kassem's claim. Answer: 392230 11. Please state the organizational structure of the Defendant with regard to first-party benefits claims and the lines of authority within the Defendant's organizational structure for the determination of payment or rejection of first-parry benefit claims. Answer: 392230 12. List the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of each fact witness you intend to call at trial and briefly summarize their anticipated testimony. Answer: 392230 13. Identify all exhibits which you expect to offer into evidence at the trial of this case. Answer: 392230 14. Please identify the individual at Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company who determined that Plaintiff s claim for payment of first-party medical benefits should be paid, denied, or reconsidered and state what factors these recommendations were based upon. Answer: 392230 15. State what written or oral instructions and information were provided relative to Plaintiff's first-party benefits claim. Answer: 392230 16. State what internal guidelines have been established at Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company to determine which claims are to be paid, provide the date the guidelines were established, and state how you monitor the application of the guidelines. Answer: 392230 17. Provide the names of any and all claims adjusters, claim managers, vice-presidents and any individual involved in this claim and the decision to deny payment of first-party medical benefits. Answer: 392230 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this)U day of August 2010, I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Damian Sammons, Esquire Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-1800 Attorney for Defendant Michelle M. Milojevich 392230 EXHIBIT B ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosikC&,angino-rovner.com NAJWA KASSEM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-4171 TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 4003.4 and 4009, please furnish at our expense, at our office on or before thirty (30) days of service hereof, a photostatic copy or like reproduction of the materials concerning this action or its subject matter which are in your possession, custody, or control and which are not protected by the attorney/client privilege; or, in the alternative, produce the said matter at said time to permit inspection and copying thereof. 1. Any and all documents referred to, relating to, or pertaining to any answer to any Interrogatory. 2. Any and all documents containing information relating to any answer to any Interrogatory. 3. The entire first-party benefits file regarding Plaintiff s claim for medical benefits. 4. Any and all statements concerning this action or its subject matter obtained by you or anyone acting on your behalf. 392231 5. Any and all curriculum vitae for each and every person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. 6. Any and all expert reports from each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial. 7. Any and all writings, memoranda, reports, statements and records, etc., which you, your company and/or client possesses concerning the case, investigation, or review of the Plaintiff and her case. Any and all medical records, reports, summaries or bills which you have received from any healthcare provider seeking payment for treatment rendered to Plaintiff. 9. Any and all medical records, reports, summaries or bills which you have received from any healthcare provider received in response to a subpoena or from a request which you issued. 10. Copies of all statements, memoranda, summaries of other writings, documents obtained from your investigation or your attorney's investigation into the claim. You need not supply any attorney's "work product" or other material which is specifically excepted as privileged by the above rule. 11. All documents in your possession, custody, or control prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial of this case, except those documents which disclose the mental impressions of your attorney or your attorney's conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories, and except those documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by your representatives to the extent that they would disclose the representatives' mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense. 392231 12. To the extent not already provided, copies of all exhibits which you intend to offer into evidence at the trial of this matter. 13. Copies of declaration sheets for each and every policy applicable to the claims made in the instant action. 14. Copies of all insurance policies applicable to the claims made in the instant action as well as the application for said policies. 15. To the extent that you have not already provided the same, copies of all manuals, instructional booklets, memoranda, etc., regarding the handling and payment or rejection of a claim for first party benefits. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff 392231 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U" AND NOW, this) day of August 2010, I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Damian Sammons, Esquire Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-1800 Attorney for Defendant Michelle M. Milojevich 392231 EXHIBIT C KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. By: Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire Damian M. Sammons, Esquire Identification No. 83350/94198 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)568-1800 File No: 969-64903 NAJWA KASSEM Attorney for Defendants, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION VS. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY NO.: 10-4171 DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY 1. (a) Travelers Security Insurance Company; (b) One Tower Square, Hartford, Connecticut 06183; (c) P.O. Box 13485, Reading, PA 19612; (d) First handler - Bethany Kline - 10/13/06 to 7/16/08 Second handler - Susan Adamitis - 7/16/08 to present (e) UPN6830 2. Please see attached records/documents. 3. Please see response to Interrogatory #1(d). Please see attached records/ documents. 4. (a) Tracy Faller (b) April 23, 2008 (c) A decision was made to continue to deny benefits based on the IME addendum. (d) Please see attached records/documents. 5. No claim manuals, instructions, and/or training materials were reviewed or relied upon. 6. Defendant is in possession of all medical records received by Plaintiff in response to Defendant's discovery requests. Furthermore, Defendant's claim file included records from Dr. Stephen Prophet; Holy Spirit Hospital; Healthsouth; Orthopedic Surgeons of Central PA; Drayer Physical Therapy Institute; Cumberland Orthopedic & Spine; Dr. David Bosacco - IME and addendum. Please see attached copies of Plaintiff's medical records. 7. Defendant has not yet determined what individuals it intends to call as expert witnesses at trial. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response within the time prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in any applicable Case Management Orders. 8. Defendant has not yet determined what individuals it intends to call as expert witnesses at trial. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response within the time prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in any applicable Case Management Orders. 9. Defendant is denying Plaintiff's first-party medical benefits based on the IME and addendum reports of Dr. David Bosacco. Please see attached records. 10. The Claim Handlers relied on Best Practices and PA Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law Manual, as well as their experience with regard to Plaintiff's claim. -2- 11. Plaintiff's medical reports and bills are reviewed to determine whether there is a question of Reasonable and Necessary treatment. If there are any questionable issues, a Peer Review or IME of the claimant may occur. In the event of a Peer Review or an IME, an outside vendor will assign a physician to review a claimant's treatment. Thereafter, a decision to pay or deny first-party benefits is made. 12. Defendant has not yet determined what individuals it intends to call as fact witnesses at trial. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response within the time prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in any applicable Case Management Orders. 13. Defendant has not yet determined what exhibits it intends to introduce into evidence at trial. Defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response within the time prescribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, in any applicable Case Management Orders. 14. Bethany Kline, a Claims Handler, was responsible for reviewing Plaintiff's claim for medical benefits. The determination to deny payment of Plaintiff's first-party benefit claim was made following the IME and addendum report of Dr. David Bosacco. Please see attached records. 15. Please see attached records/documents. 16. Please see Answer to Interrogatories #5, #10 and #11. 17. Please see Answer to Interrogatories #1, #3, #4 and #14. KENT & Ma IDE, By: ian am ons, Esqiu Reo Def ndant, -3- Date: pvJ Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company -4- Mar,22. 2011 3:43PM Travelers-PIP VERMCATIOAI No.2070 P. 2/2 I, Susan Adamitis, hereby state that I am a representative of Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company; that l am authorized to take this'Veiification on its behalf; and 1 hereby aver that the facts set forth in the Responses to Discovery of Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, to Plaintiffs Discovery Requests set forth therein are true and contct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Piuther, I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Susan Adamitis Claims Representative - First Party Medical Wyomissing Office. 1105 )Berkshire Blvd Wyomissing, PA 19160 KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. By: Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire Damian M. Sammons, Esquire Identification No. 83350/94198 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)568-1800 File No: 969-64903 NAJWA KASSEM Attorney for Defendants, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION VS. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY NO.: 10-4171 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 2. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 3. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 4. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 5. Answering Defendant has yet to identify the expert and/or experts who will testify on its behalf at the time of trial. When, and if, a determination is made as to the expert(s) who will testify on the answering defendant's behalf at the trial, this answer will be supplemented in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.5. 6. Answering Defendant has yet to identify the expert and/or experts who will testify on its behalf at the time of trial. When, and if, a determination is made as to the expert(s) who will testify on the answering defendant's behalf at the trial, this answer will be supplemented in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.5. 7. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 8. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 9. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of -2- this objection, please see attached records/documents. 10. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Interrogatory/Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 11. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Interrogatory/Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial and seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 12. Answering defendant has yet to identify the exhibits it will utilize at the time of trial. When, a determination is made as to the exhibits to be used on answering defendant's behalf at the trial, this answer will be supplemented in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.5. 13. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. 14. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. -3- 15. Objection. Answering Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial. Subject to, but without waiver of this objection, please see attached records/documents. KENT & McBRIDE, P.C. By: ami i ( DATE: Travele 1 m. ammons fo Defe nt 7 rance Co. -4- EXHIBIT D 3 a ngino-rovner 4503 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1799 PHONE: (717) 238-6791 FAX: (717)238-5610 www.angino-rovner.com E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com April 7, 2011 Damian Sammons, Esquire KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 RICHARD C. ANGINO NEIL J. ROVNER DAVID L. LUTZ MICHAEL E. KOSIK RICHARD A.SADLOCK LISA M. B. WOODBURN DARYL E. CHRISTOPHER RE: Kassem v. Travelers Security Insurance Co. Dear Damian: I am in receipt of Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Defendant's Request for Production of Documents. I believe that the Answers, especially to the Request for Production of Documents is incomplete. In answer to Interrogatories, specifically response to Interrogatory #10, you reference Best Practices and Pa. Motor Vehicle Responsibility Manual. I know from handling previous cases, these are actual documents, however, they were not supplied in response to the Request for Production of Documents. I would appreciate your providing me with any document which you maintain establishes "Best Practices" as well as a copy of the "Pa Motor Vehicle Responsibility Manual." Your response to the Request for Production of Documents in response to 3 of the 18 provides an answer without an objection. In 15 of the 18 responses, you begin your response with an objection even though I do not believe an objection is applicable and the information requested is discoverable. The claim notes which you provided have been heavily redacted, however, you have not raised any basis for the redaction. You have not provided a privilege log explaining the basis for the redactions. I do not believe that there would be any basis to redact the notes as there was no litigation which was ongoing and obviously the thought process and opinion and decisions of the adjusters and claims handlers would be relevant in a first-party claim. I do not believe that objections based upon mental impression, conclusions, opinions of an attorney or representative concerning litigation is valid in a first-party claim anymore than it 467501 Damian Sammons, Esquire April 7, 2011 Page 2 would be in a bad faith claim. No attorney or litigation was contemplated until after the denial of benefits based upon Dr. Bosacco's amended report. I would appreciate your providing me with unredacted notes of the claims adjusters as well as full and complete answers to the other Requests for Production of Documents within 10 days, or I will have no choice but to file a Motion to Compel. V t Michael E. Kosik MEK/mmm 467501 EXHIBIT E ngino-rovner 3ac NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1799 PHONE: (717) 238-6791 FAX: (717) 238-5610 www.angino-rovner.com E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com Apri128, 2011 Damian Sammons, Esquire KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 RICHARD C. ANGINO NEIL J. ROVNER DAviD L. LUTZ MICHAEL E. KOSIK RICHARD A.SADLOCK LISA M. B. WOODBURN DARYL E. CHRISTOPHER RE: Kassem v. Travelers Security Insurance Co. Dear Damian: I am in receipt of your Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. I was surprised to receive these since at the end of the deposition of Ms. Kassem, you indicated that you were going to speak to your client about settling her claim. I would appreciate your providing full and complete answers to my Interrogatories as requested in my letter of April 7, 2011. Otherwise, I will be filing a Motion to Compel. If we are moving forward, I would like to schedule depositions of the adjusters involved in the claim. V y ul Michael E. Kosik MEK/mmm 469251 EXHIBIT F Milojevich, Michelle From: Kosik, Mike Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 3:19 PM To: 'Sammons, Damian M.' Subject: RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Damian, you I will wait to hear from you hopefully on June 7 about possible settlement. Thank Michael Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 The content of this E-mail message is attorney privileged and highly confidential, directed only to the above named person. Therefore, distribution, utilization or copying of this information by anyone other than the designated recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify us immediately at (717) 238-6791, and return the original message to us by E-mail. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Sammons, Damian M. [mailto:Dsammons@kentmcbride.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:57 PM To: Kosik, Mike Subject: RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Michael, This e-mail is just to memorialize our telephone conversation of a few minutes ago that I am conferencing with my client on June 7, 2011 regarding this claim. Per our agreement, please withhold on filing a motion to compel discovery responses until after this date. Regards, Damian M. Sammons, Esq. Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F.Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (267)702-1770 (office) (267)702-1771 (fax) DSammons@kentmcbride.com www.kentmchride.com THIS E-MAIL AND/OR ATTACHMENTS CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED MATERIAL. SHOULD YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, DO NOT REVIEW, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AT 215-568-1800 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kosik, Mike [mailto:mkosik@angino-rovner.com] 1 > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 2:D3 PM > To: Sammons, Damian M. > Subject: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers > <<20110531093450585.pdf>> Damian, > Attached is a motion to compel which we will be filing on Friday. I > will assume you don't consent if I don't hear back from you by Friday. > I indicated I was going to file this earlier this year but held off > since you indicated you were going to recommend settlement after my > clients deposition. When we received your discover we held off > answering it since again you indicated you were recommending settlement > and I thought maybe these went out by mistake. Please see my letter of > April 28. > I received a fax from your assistant, Jessica M. Heinz, indicating > our discover was overdue. I was again shocked since it had not been > 30 days since we had received it. We have been waiting months, > not days, for your responses and still don't have complete responses. > You should now have our responses to the Request for Production of > Documents. We will have answers to Interrogatories to you within the > next week to 10 days since we need our client to review them and sign > the verification. > Michael - >_ Michael E. Kosik, Esquire_ > Angino & Rovner, P.C. > 4503 N. Front Street > Harrisburg, Pa 17110 > Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 > The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link > attachments: > 20110531093450585.pdf > Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent > sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your > e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 2 G EXHIBIT G Milojevich, Michelle From: Kosik, Mike Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:29 PM To: 'Sammons, Damian M.' Subject: RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Damian, Another week has passed without a response as to Traveler's position on settlement. As I explained last week I have held off on filing our Motion to Compel as well as pressing my client for her responses to your discovery based upon your assurance that you were waiting to hear from your client about settlement. You hoped to be back to me by June 7. I will be out of the office on vacation next week but plan on requesting my client respond to your discovery. If I don't hear from you about settlement by July 7 I will also proceed to file the Motion to Compel. Mike Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 The content of this E-mail message is attomey privileged and highly confidential, directed only to the above named person. Therefore, distribution, utilization or copying of this information by anyone other than the designated recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify us immediately at (717) 238-6791, and return the original message to us by E-mail. Thank you. EXHIBIT H anglno-rovner 4503 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1799 PHONE: (717) 238-6791 FAX: (717) 238-5610 www.angino-rovner.com E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com July 29, 2011 Damian Sammons, Esquire KENT & MCBRIDE, P. C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 RE: Kassem v. Travelers Security Insurance Co. Dear Damian: RICHARD C. ANGINO NEIL J. ROVNER DAVID L. LUTZ MICHAEL E. Kom RICHARD A.SADLOCK LISA M. B. WOODBURN DARYL E. CHRISTOPHER You requested a copy of my April 7, 2011 letter requesting further answers to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. We are now another month down the road with no responses from Travelers concerning this requested discovery. We have answered your client's discovery in a relatively timely fashion and were only holding off responding to it given the fact that you indicated there was a possibility of settlement. If I do not have full and complete answers to our discovery requests by August 15, 2011, 1 will file the-M- otiori to Compel- I -have provided-you with--more-tliem sufficient-time to re-sporid-to the-d scovery;-arid any- further extensions will not be considered. chael E. Kosik MEKJmmm 476884 r 2- ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1799 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com 3L fir= 2 4.* 0 Z.? ^-1 C.4 :;0 - .1 NAJWA KASSEM V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,r TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-4171 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEIINNDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of y?V 51 , 2011, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion, it is hereby ordered that; 1) a rule is issued upon respondent to show cause why the petitioner is not entitled to relief requested; 2) the respondent shall file an answer to the motion/petition within days of this date; 3) the motion/petition shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.7; 4) discovery shall be completed within 4 0 days of this date- ^ 5) argument shall be held on I? P V • 4 ?D , to D iof 1 Courtroom#-ak of the Cumberland County Courthouse; and 6) notice of entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by the petitioner. BY THE COURT: DISTRIBUTION: /Michael E. Kosik, Esquire, 4503 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, (717) 238- 91; fax (717) 238-5610; mkosik@angino-rovner.com ? Damian Sammons, Esquire, Esquire, 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 568-1800; Dsammons@kentmcbride.com iP5 p 470990 $ a`? f KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. (I# F { 10 By:Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire ttorne for Defendants t?, f t t NO CPUUHT? y ' Identification No. 83350 t 'J, 1' DA i1a Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 'Philadelph'ia, PA 19103 (215)568-1800 File No: %9-64903 NAJWA KASSEM COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL DIVISION NO.: 104171 DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted upon information and belief. 4. Admitted upon information and belief. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part; a discussion was held by and between counsel after this letter of April 7, 2011 pertaining to possible settlement in lieu of Defendant filing supplemental answers to discovery requested by Plaintiff's counsel. See document atrtached hereto as Exhibit "A." 7. Admitted. 8. Denied as stated. It is denied that the requests for discovery were typical of document requests in first-party cases. 9, Denied as stated. Answering Defendant is further advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs Motion are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required, 10. Admitted. Plaintiff's request in Request for Production of Documents No. 3 is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence at the time of trial, 11. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of plaintiff's Motion are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 12, Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of plaintiff's Motion are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required, 13. Admitted in part; a discussion was held by and between counsel after this letter of April 28, 2011 pertaining to possible settlement in lieu of Defendant filing supplemental answers to discovery requested by Plaintiff's counsel. See document attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 14. Admitted in part; while it is admitted that Plaintiff's counsel sent a copy of its Motion to Compel without attachments to defense counsel via Email on May 31, 2011, it is denied that this correspondence via e-mail requested Defendant's concurrence or nonconcurrence. To the contrary, the e-mail correspondence from Plaintiffs counsel stated, "Attached is a motion to compel which we will be filing on Friday. I will assume you don't consent if I don't hear back from you by Friday." See document attached hereto as Exhibit "B," 15, Denied as stated. On or about May 31, 2011, counsel for Defendant had a conversation with Plaintiff's counsel pertaining to a conference call with his client pertaining to Plaintiff's demand for settlement on the date of June 7, 2011 and requesting a hold on Plaintiff s filing of any motion until after the date of June 7, 2011 to determine whether the case at bar could reach an amicable settlement. See document attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Defendant files this present reply in response to Plaintiff's motion to compel supplemental discovery. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied as stated. On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel requesting Defendant's manual that is the subject of Plaintiffs present motion and alerted Defendant's counsel that he would be filing "a Motion within the next 10 days" to acquire a copy of the subject manual, In that letter, Plaintiff's counsel agreed to enter into a confidentiality agreement to obtain the confidential materials of the subject manual. Additionally, Plaintiffs counsel agreed to "limit production to the relevant section." On July 24, 2009, Plaintiffs counsel signed Defendant's protective order for the subject manual and forwarded it to Defendant's counsel by regular mail. The document that is the subject of Plaintiffs present motion was then submitted to Plaintiff's counsel on October 7, 2009. See documents attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 21. Denied as stated, On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant's counsel requesting Defendant's manual that is the subject of Plaintiff s present motion and alerted Defendant's counsel that he would be filing "a Motion within the next 10 days" to acquire a copy of the subject manual. In that letter, Plaintiffs counsel agreed to enter into a confidentiality agreement to obtain the confi dential materials of the subject manual. Additionally, Plaintiff s counsel agreed to "limit production to the relevant section." On July 24, 2009, Plaintiffs counsel signed Defendant's protective order for the subject claims manual and forwarded it to Defendant's counsel by regular mail. The document that is the subject of Plaintiffs present motion was then submitted to Plaintiff's counsel on October 7, 2009. See documents attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 22. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs Motion are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 23. Denied. Answering Defendant is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of plaintiff's Motion are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Supplemental Request for Discovery Responses. Respectfully submitted, KENT & McBRIDE, P.C. By: (? -4 Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire Dated: Attorney for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire, hereby state that I am the attorney for Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company; that I am authorized to take this Verification on its behalf; and I hereby aver that the facts set forth in Defendant's , Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, Reply to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Further, I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. By: ERNEST F. KOSCHINEG, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO:83350 1617 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. SUITE 1200 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 568-1800 FILE NO: 969-64903 NAJWA KASSEM Attorney for Defendant, Travelers Security Insurance Company COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY VS. TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL DIVISION NO.: 10-4171 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire, hereby certify that this /3 day of September, 2011, a true and correct copy of the within Answer of Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Company, to Plaintiffs Complaint was served on all parties of record by first-class mail, postage prepaid below: Michael E. Kosik, Esquire 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 KENT & McBRIDE, P.C. By:' Ernest F. Koschineg, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Travelers Personal Security Insurance Co. EXHIBIT A RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Page 1 of 1 Sammons, Damian M. From: Kosik, Mike [mkosik@angino-rovner.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 20112:29 PM To: Sammons, Damian M, Subject: RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Damian, Another week has passed without a response as to Traveler's position on settlement, As I explained last week I have held off on filing our Motion to Compel as well as pressing my client for her responses to your discovery based upon your assurance that you were waiting to hear from your client about settlement. You hoped to be back to me by June 7. 1 will be out of the office on vacation next week but plan on requesting my client respond to your discovery, If I don't hear from you about settlement by July 7 I will also proceed to file the Motion to Compel, Mike Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 2386795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 The content of this E-mail message Is aftomey privileged and highly confhtantlal, directed only to the above named person. Therefore, distribution, utilization or copying of this information by anyone other than the designated redpient Is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify us Immediately at (717) 238-8791, and return the original message to us by E-mail. Thank you. 9/12/2011 EXHIBIT B Sammons, Damian M. From: Kosik, Mike [mkosik@angino-rovner.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 20112:5 3 PM To: Sammons, Damian M. Subject: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Attachments: 20110531093450585.pdf 9i 2011053109345058 5.pdf (468 K8)... <<20110531093450585.pdf>> Damian, Attached is a motion to compel which we will be filing on Friday. I will assume you don't consent if I don't hear back from you by Friday. I indicated I was going to file this earlier this year but held off since you indicated you were going to recommend settlement after my clients deposition. When we received your discover we held off answering it since again you indicated you were recommending settlement and I thought maybe these went out by mistake. Please see my letter of April 28. I received a fax from your assistant, Jessica M. Heinz, indicating our discover was overdue. I was again shocked since it had not been 30 days since we had received it. We have been waiting months, not days, for your responses and still don't have complete responses. You should now have our responses to the Request for Production of Documents. We will have answers to Interrogatories to you within the next week to 10 days since we need our client to review them and sign the verification. Michael Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 20110531093450585.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. EXHIBIT C Sammons, Damian M. From: Kosik, Mike [mkosik@angino-rovner.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 20113:19 PM To: Sammons, Damian M. Subject: RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Damian, I will wait to hear from you hopefully on June 7 about possible settlement. Thank you. Michael Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 The content of this E-mail message is attorney privileged and highly confidential, directed only to the above named person, Therefore, distribution, utilization or copying of this information by anyone other than the designated recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify us immediately at (717) 238-6791, and return the original message to us by E-mail. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Sammons, Damian M. [mailto:Dsammons@kentincbride.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 20112:57 PM To: Kosik, Mike Subject: RE: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers Michael, This e-mail is just to memorialize our telephone conversation of a few minutes ago that I am conferencing with my client on June 7, 2011 regarding this claim. , Per our agreement, please withhold on filing a motion to compel discovery responses until after this date Regards, Damian M. Sammons, Esq. Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (267)702-1770 (office) (267)702-1771 (fax) DSammons@kentmcbride. com www.kentmcbride.com THIS E-MAIL AND/OR ATTACHMENTS CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED MATERIAL. SHOULD YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, DO NOT REVIEW, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS EMAIL. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AT 215-568-1800 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kosik, Mike [mailto:mkosik@angino-rovner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 20112:53 PM > To: Sammons, Damian M. > Subject: Motion to Compel in Kassem v Travelers > <<20l l0531093450585.pdf5> Damian, > Attached is a motion to compel which we will be filing on Friday. I > will assume you don't consent if I don't hear back from you by Friday. > I indicated I was going to file this earlier this year but held off > since you indicated you were going to recommend settlement after my > clients deposition. When we received your discover we held off > answering it since again you indicated you were recommending settlement > and I thought maybe these went out by mistake. Please see my letter of > April 28. > I received a fax from your assistant, Jessica M. Heinz, indicating > our discover was overdue. I was again shocked since it had not been > 30 days since we had received it. We have been waiting months, > not days, for your responses and still don't have complete responses. > You should now have our responses to the Request for Production of > Documents. We will have answers to Interrogatories to you within the > next week to 10 days since we need our client to review them and sign > the verification. > Michael > Michael E. Kosik, Esquire > Angino & Rovner, P.C. > 4503 N. Front Street > Harrisburg, Pa 17110 > Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 > The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link > attachments: > 20110531093450585.pdf > Note; To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent > sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your > e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. EXHIBIT D Page 1 of 2 Calabrese, Courtney From: Kosik, Mike [mkosik@angino-rovner.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 2:39 PM To: Calabrese, Courtney Subject: RE: Kassem - Practices Manual Courtney, I spoke to the Court Administrator's office who had no record of the Agreed Protective Order. She then transferred me to the Prothonotary's office and they found the filing. Joyce in the Prothonotary's office said that they are normally filed as part of a Motion. She believes that it was overlooked and just filed. She also said that she would need two additional copies of the Agreed Protective Order and envelopes to return signed copies to both of us. You can send the information to the attention of Joyce in the Prothonotary's Office. Thank you. Mike Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 -- Fax (717) 238-5610 The content of this E-mail message Is attorney privileged and highly confidential, directed only to the above named person. Therefore, distribution, utilkaUon or copying of this Information by anyone other than the designated recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have erroneously received this communication, please notify us immediately at (717) 238.8791, and return the original message to us by E-mail. Thank you. From: Calabrese, Courtney [mailto:ccalabrese@kentmcbride.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10:36 AM To: Kosik, Mike Subject: Kassem - Practices Manual Mike, Per our conversation, attached please find the requested portions of Travelers Best Practices Manual. Thank you. CC Courtney M. Calabrese, Esq, Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F.Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (267)702-1770 (office) (215)568-1830 (fax) gcalabrese kentmcbride.com 10/7/2009 angino•rovner 4503 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110.1799 PHONE: (717) 238-6791 FAX: (717) 238-56 10 www.angino-rovner.com RICHARD C. ANGINO NEIL J. ROVNER JOSEPH M. MELILLO DAVID L. LUTZ MICHAEL E. KOSIK RICHARD A. SADLOCK LISA N1. B. WOODBURN DARVL E. CHRISTOPHER E-mail: Inkosik®angino-rovner.com October 1, 2009 Courtney Calabrese, Esquire KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Kassem v. Travelers Security Insurance Co. Dear Courtney: I provided you with the Claim Service First Party Medical Benefits Best Practices Manual Table of Contents back on August 19, 2009. I highlighted the sections I was requesting and also provided you with the pages I thought were relevant. I also had questions concerning whether there was additional information on another page of the Table of Contents. Please see my letter of August 19, 2009. I have yet to receive any response to this and would appreciate your providing this information and answering these questions. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Michael E. Kosik MEK/mmm 421234 Page 1 of I Scheese, Kelly From: Kosik, Mike lmkosik@angino-rovner.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:37 AM To: Scheese, Kelly Subject: RE: Kassem v. Travelers Kelly, 1 review the proposed Protective Order and although 1 think it was probably more complicated than need be I. did not make any corrections or deletions. i signed it and my secretary will be returning it via regular mail. Thank you. Mike Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P,C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa 17110 Phone (717) 238-6795 ext 3026 - Fax (717) 238-5610 The content of this E-mall message is attorney privileged and highly confidential, directed only to the above named person. Therefore, distribution, utlllzation or copying or this information by anyone other than the designated recipient is strictly prohibited, It you have erroneously received this communication, please notify us Immediately at (717) 238-6791, and return the original message to us by E-mail. Thank you. From: Scheese, Kelly [mailto:Kscheese@kentmcbdde.com] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:59 PM To: Kosik, Mike Subject: Kassem v. Travelers Mike, Attached is the Protective Order we need to enter In order to produce portions of the claims manual you requested. Please sign and return to me for filing with the Court. Thank you. Kelly Scheese Kent & McBride, P.C. 1617 John F.Kennedy Blvd. Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215)568-1800 (office) (215)568-1830 (fax) Kscheem0kentmcbride com www.kenttmc4rid@from THIS E MAIL AND/OR ATTACHMENTS CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL, PRIVILEGED MATERIAL. SHOULD YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, DO NOT REVIEW, COPY, USE OR DISSEMINATE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AT 215-568-1800 7/27/2009 ongino-rovner 4503 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1799 PHONE: (717) 238-6791 FAxc(717)238-5610 www.angino-rovner.com E-mail: mkosik®angino-rovner.cum RICHARD C. ANGINO NEIL J. RovNER JOSEPH M. MELILLO DAVID L. LUTZ MICHAEL E. Kom RICHARD A.SADLOCK LISA M. B. WOODBURN DARYL E, CHRISTOPHER July 14, 2009 Kelly C. Scheese, Esquire KENT & MCBRIDE, P.C. 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Kassem v. Travelers Security Insurance Co. Dear Kelly: I am going to file a Motion to Compel because I believe that the claims manual is discoverable in this first-party claim. I will be filing the Motion within the next 10 days after which we can hopefully set up the depositions of the Travelers employees involved in the claim. If the objection is limited to confidentiality, I would be willing to enter into an agreement protecting the confidentiality of these materials. Additionally, if the documents manual covers topics related to this claim, I would be agreeable to limit production to the relevant section. A copy of the table of contents with the relevant section w tory. Please let me know if this is acceptable as a solution to this matter, MEK/mmm 414858