PITTSBURGH – The terms of a settlement General Motors entered into with a Penfield plaintiff whose son was burned alive and killed in an auto accident, have been sealed by a court order.
Bonnie Winkler (as the administratrix of the estate of Joseph M. Winkler) of Penfield first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 23 versus General Motors, LLC of Wilmington, Del. and Kurt Johnson Auto Sales, of DuBois.
“On Dec. 29, 2019, Joseph Winkler was the driver and operator of the Chevy Cruze, which was an automobile designed, developed, manufactured, tested, assembled, and/or distributed by defendant GM. On that date, the Chevy Cruze was traveling south on SR-255 and traveled off the west side of the roadway,” the suit stated.
“The Chevy Cruze continued to travel southwest before overturning and coming to rest, catching fire. A fire erupted and spread to the passenger compartment fully engulfing the Chevy Cruze burning Joseph Winkler alive.”
The suit said the defendant GM knew or should have known that the Chevy Cruze was defective, not crashworthy and not escape-worthy, and knew or should have known that the Chevy Cruze was defective because its crash protection design did not comport with the expectations of an ordinary consumer.
“As a direct and proximate result of the defective condition of the Chevy Cruze, plaintiff’s decedent, Joseph M. Winkler, sustained catastrophic personal injuries, which ultimately resulted in his death,” per the suit.
“As set forth above, defendants’ conduct and defective product design increased the risk of harm to plaintiff’s decedent, Joseph M. Winkler and was a substantial factor in causing the death of Joseph M. Winkler.”
Kurt Johnson Auto Sales, LLC filed an answer and new matter on March 22, containing dozens of affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against this defendant. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or must be reduced by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. Plaintiff’s claims are barred and/or must be reduced by the doctrine of contributory and/or comparative negligence,” the answer stated, among numerous defenses.
“In the event it is determined that the plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages alleged, then said injuries and damages were not caused by this defendant, but were caused by other individuals and/or entities over whom this defendant exercised no control and for whose conduct this defendant cannot be held liable. In the event it is determined that the plaintiff sustained any injuries and/or damages, then said injuries and damages were the sole, proximate and direct result of pre-existing, intervening, and/or superseding causes not within the control of this defendant and for which this defendant cannot be held liable.”
The defendant also raised the applicable statute of limitations as a complete bar to the plaintiff’s claims, among many, many other defenses.
In a reply to the defendant’s new matter filed on April 7, counsel for the plaintiff did not respond substantively to the defendant’s counter-claims and said they were not legally required to do so.
“[These allegations are] neither admitted nor denied, and call for a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, all allegations contained therein are denied,” the reply stated.
Counsel for General Motors filed its own motion to seal the plaintiff’s motion for approval of the settlement and distribution of its survival and wrongful death proceeds, as confidentiality was a term of the settlement reached earlier this summer.
“On July 2, 2021, plaintiff and GM LLC reached a confidential settlement agreement that globally resolves the claims asserted against all parties. It is now requested, because good cause exists, that plaintiff’s motion for approval of amount and distribution of settlement of survival and wrongful death action proceeds, the exhibits and proposed order, and any future pleadings and proceedings that contain the amount and terms of the confidential settlement agreement reached between the parties in this case be held under seal,” the motion stated.
“Confidentiality of the settlement amount, as well as terms and conditions of the settlement, is a material condition of the release and settlement agreement and negotiated between plaintiff and GM, LLC. Confidentiality of the settlement amount and terms is routine in settlements involving product manufacturers like GM, LLC. Whether a document is subject to public access depends upon whether the document has been filed with the court or otherwise incorporated into a court’s adjudicatory proceeding. If a document is filed of record with the court, it is deemed to be a judicial record, and is subject to disclosure under the ‘right of access’ doctrine without the necessity of demonstrating that it is a ‘public record’ under the Right to Know Act.”
The company argued that the Third Circuit has held that the common law “right of access” doctrine, which makes judicial records presumptively public, does not require the publication of a confidential settlement entered on the record.
“Good cause exists in the instant matter to seal plaintiff’s motion and all attachments thereto, and all future pleadings and proceedings, because confidentiality of the settlement amount is a material condition of the settlement. The action of making the amount and/or terms publicly available would directly conflict with the express agreement of the parties. Further, the settlement is being funded by private corporations and none of the funds are public funds or taxes,” the motion added.
UPDATE
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Patrick Connelly confirmed the settlement terms would be sealed in a Dec. 14 order.
“Upon consideration of the unopposed motion to seal the plaintiff’s motion for approval of amount and distribution of settlement and survival and wrongful death action proceeds, it is hereby ordered that said motion is granted. It is further ordered that plaintiff’s motion for approval of amount and distribution of settlement of survival and wrongful death action proceeds, the exhibits and any future pleadings and proceedings that contain the amount and terms of the confidential settlement agreement reached between the parties, shall be held under seal,” Connelly said.
The plaintiff was represented by Jeffrey Gutkowski of Atlee Hall in Lancaster, and Jason M. Schiffman of the Schiffman Firm, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Mark R. Lane of Dell Moser Lane & Loughney, also in Pittsburgh, plus Vikas Bowry, Francis J. Grey Jr. and Monica V. Marsico of Ricci Tyrrell Johnson Grey, in Philadelphia.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011954
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com