Recent Expert Witness Matters

Back to top
Expert Witness Matter
October 15, 2009

Hughes v. Angelo, Hub Bank (now TD Bank), et al, Philadelphia CC Pleas November 2007

Case Synopsis: A Quadriplegic military veteran who received a million dollar settlement against the VA hospital system claimed that an officer at Hudson United Bank gave his private financial information to a friend, and conspired to have her seduce and marry him. The friend proceeded to plunder his bank accounts, while the bank officer did nothing about it. Raymond Hughes sued the officer and the bank for damages.

Expert Analysis: Lee Tabas provided Expert opinion that the officer and Bank had a duty prior to making an introduction to check criminal record, work history, and references. Further, the officer and Bank had a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the customer, and to preserve and protect the depositor’s assets. Result: The matter was settled by the Bank and awarded a payment to Raymond Hughes.

Back to top
Expert Witness Matter
October 15, 2009

Class Action, v. Royal Bank of Pennsylvania re: Continental Business Center

Case Synopsis: On May 15, 2001 the Continental Business Center (CBC) in Bridgeport, Pennsylvania burned to the ground. Thereafter, High Swartz LLP, in tandem with the Philadelphia law firm of Kline & Specter, filed a lawsuit against the CBC's owner, Bushar Corporation, on behalf of all persons damaged by the catastrophic fire. Judge O'Neill certified the Class Action. State and local officials have estimated that the fire caused in excess of $100 million in damages.

Class Action Plaintiffs alleged that Royal Bank of Pennsylvania had liability for the fire, because it used an engineer for disbursement of its construction loan. Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank’s engineer should have discovered faulty electrical work. The bank was represented by Post and Schell.

Expert Analysis: Lee Tabas testified for the bank that the engineer did not supervise construction, but only vouched for the percentage of completion so that the bank could disburse its loan. He explained the construction loan disbursement procedures. With the small amount of time spent and modest billing from the bank’s engineer, and with the engineer’s reports distributed only to the bank, it did not make sense that the building owner relied on the engineer’s reports.

Result: While some aspects of the case may be ongoing, the bank and its carrier settled with the Plaintiffs before trial.