CALL TOLL FREE: 855-833-3604
Follow Zarwin Baum on Twitter Follow Zarwin Baum on Facebook Follow Zarwin Baum on YouTube Follow Zarwin Baum on LinkedIn Print Contact Us Office Locations

Career Biography

As a shareholder in the firm’s insurance defense department, Joe defends a wide range of clients from large commercial enterprises to individuals in general liability matters with a focus on premises liability. Joe handles a wide variety of cases including slip and falls, retail store accidents, assault and battery,   retail theft, products liability, legal malpractice, and motor vehicle accidents including trucking and transportation.  Joe defends insurance companies, state agencies, self -insured employers and Third Party Administrators in Pennsylvania Workers Compensation matters as well.   
 
Joe has more than ten (10) years’ experience and he has tried cases before juries in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties. Joe also has tried cases before arbitrators in the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Joe serves as an arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. 
 

Representative Matters

Motor Vehicle

Successfully defended trucking company with regard to a motor vehicle accident wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s tractor trailer ran over him while he was stopped on his motor cycle. At trial, Defendant was forced to stipulate to negligence since it could not locate its driver, but defended the case on causation and damages. After two days of trial, the jury award plaintiff, $702 which was the amount of his boardable medical bills. The jury did not award Plaintiff any damages for pain and suffering. 

Successfully defended trucking company with regard to a motor vehicle accident wherein plaintiff’s vehicle was hit in the rear. Therein, Plaintiffs alleged that they sustained serious injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident. It was Defendant’s position that notwithstanding its driver’s negligence, Plaintiffs injuries were de minimus only. The case was subsequently called to Trial at which point, Plaintiffs’ attorney agreed to accept nominal amounts for both Plaintiffs.

Successfully Defended Insured 

Successfully defended insured driver in a motor vehicle accident wherein Plaintiff alleged that the insured driver ran a red light and caused her to sustain serious injuries. It was Defendant’s position that Plaintiff was the person who actually ran the red light and that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The case was called for Trial. After jury selection, Plaintiff dismissed the case and agreed to have an judgment on non pros entered against him.

Successfully defended insured driver in a motor vehicle accident wherein plaintiff alleged that Defendant made a left turn across traffic and hit into Plaintiff’s vehicle and caused her to sustain a serious injury. Defendant stipulated to negligence and argued that Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries only and did not breach the limited tort threshold. Prior to jury selection, Plaintiff agreed to accept $500 in settlement in full of all claims.

Successfully defended insured driver in a motor vehicle accident wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendant hit him in the rear and caused Plaintiff to sustain serious injuries. Defendant stipulated to liability and defended the case based on limited tort. The case was subsequently remanded to arbitration wherein the arbitration panel found that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. Plaintiff did not file an appeal of the arbitration award.

Successfully defended insured driver in a motor vehicle accident wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendant ran a red light and caused her to suffer serious injuries. Prior to trial, Plaintiff agreed to accept $1,000 for full settlement.

Successfully defended insured driver who possessed a limited policy wherein the driver rear ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. It was Defendant’s position that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as a result of the motor vehicle accident.  Prior to trial, Plaintiff agreed to accept money for his economic damages only for full settlement of the case.

Successfully defended trucking company with regard to a motor vehicle accident wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s tractor trailer ran over him while he was stopped on his motor cycle. At trial, Defendant was forced to stipulate to negligence since it could not locate its driver, but defended the case on causation and damages. After two days of trial, the jury award plaintiff, $702 which was the amount of his boardable medical bills. The jury did not award Plaintiff any damages for pain and suffering. 

Premises Liability

Obtained Defense award in Binding ADR on behalf of regional supermarket. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on juice inside Defendant’s supermarket.  The case was defended on the basis that the Plaintiff could not establish that the Defendant, supermarket had actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect.  The arbitrator agreed with the Defense’s position and found in favor of the Defendant. Since the low is place was zero, Plaintiff did not receive any recovery. Plaintiff’s settlement demand was $100,000.

Obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of regional supermarket. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell in the parking lot outside Defendant’s supermarket. Defendant argued that pursuant to its lease agreement with its landlord that it was not responsible for the area where Plaintiff fell. At the conclusion of discovery, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice.  The Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Thereafter, The Superior of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial Court’s decision. 
 
Obtained Defense Award in Jury Trial on behalf of Company.  This was a slip and fall case. Plaintiff who had just finished taking a swimming class, came out of the pool, and was walking down the hallway when she slipped and fell. Plaintiff’s theory was that she fell because the floor was wet and that Defendant was negligent because it did not have mats in pace to prevent water from accumulating on the aisle floor. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her neck, back and knees, and believed that she was permanently disabled. Fortunately, the incident was caught on video which failed to show any defect. The Defendant’s filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was denied. Thereafter, the case proceeded to a jury trial. On the second day of trial, Plaintiff failed to appear. Consequently, the Judge entered a Judgment of Non Pros.   Plaintiff’s initial settlement demand was $250,000.
 
Obtained a No Cause in New Jersey Arbitration which was not appealed. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell coming out of Defendant’s supermarket. Defendant’s position was that based on the lease agreement with its landlord that it was not responsible for the area where Plaintiff fell. Further, Defendant argued that Plaintiff could not identify any defect on which she fell. The case proceeded to arbitration at which time the arbitrator awarded a No Cause to Defendants. Plaintiff did not appeal the arbitration award. Plaintiff’s settlement demand was $75,000.
 
Plaintiff Withdrew Complaint Prior to Trial. Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on water inside Defendant’s supermarket causing tear to her shoulder which required surgery.  It was Defendant’s position that Plaintiff fell on her own feet; that is, that Plaintiff tripped due to the high heel shoes that she was wearing. Consequently, no settlement offer was made to Plaintiff. The case was called to Trial. One week before Trial, Plaintiff attorney withdrew Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice. 
 
Obtained Defense Award on behalf of Regional Supermarket.   Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant for claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant defended the case on among other things the Shop Keepers Privilege. The case was eventually remanded to arbitration at which time the arbitrators found in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff filed an Appeal of the arbitration award. The case proceeded to trial. However, when the case was called to trial Plaintiff and her attorney failed to appear for the trial. Consequently, the Court entered a Judgment of Non Pros. 

Obtained a defense award in binding arbitration wherein Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on water in Defendant’s supermarket and suffered a broken elbow, and herniations to her neck and back. Defendant took the position that Plaintiff could not establish actual or constructive notice of the water on the aisle floor when she slipped and fell.  The ADR panel agreed with Defendant’s position and entered an award in favor of the Defendant.

Obtained a defense award in a binding arbitration wherein Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on jam that was on the aisle floor. Defendant through its video of the incident argued that Plaintiff did not possess actual or constructive notice of nay defect. The arbitration panel agreed and found in favor of the Defendant.

Successfully defended regional supermarket in a case wherein Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on orange juice that was spilled onto the aisle floor. Plaintiff alleged that she sustained a tear of her Achilles tendon and needed surgery to repair same. The case proceeded to arbitration wherein the arbitration panel found in favor of the Defendant as Plaintiff did not prove constructive notice. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the arbitration award. The case was listed for trial. Prior to jury selection, Plaintiff accepted a nominal settlement for all claims.   

Workers Compensation

Successfully defended state agency of Claim Petition filed by Claimant. Claimant alleged that he was injured while working. As a result of the incident, plaintiff claimed injuries. The Defendant argued that Claimant was not entitled to any recovery as he was an independent contractor. The case proceeded, and the record closed. The parties briefed all the issues. The WCJ found on favor of the Defendant. 

Successfully defended state agency in defense of Claim Petition filed by Claimant. Claimant alleged that he was injured while working as a landscaper.  Claimant’s alleged injuries included tear to his knee. The case proceeded. The Defendant produced four (4) co -workers of the Claimant as well as Claimant’s employer himself in support of its defense that Claimant was an independent contractor and thus not entitled to any type of recovery.
 
Successfully defended state agency in defense of Claim Petition filed by Claimant. Claimant was injured while working for a small trucking company. Claimant filed a Claim Petition and alleged that he sustained a lumbar strain/strain, aggravation of degenerative disc disease and a possible vertebra fracture.  Defendants argued that a work injury did not occur as the Claimant was not within the course and scope of employment. The record closed. The parties briefed the issues. The WCJ found in favor of the Defendants as the Claimant had not proved that a work injury occurred.  
 

News & Events:

Recent Successes:

Joseph F. Longo

Shareholder
P: 267.765.9622
F: 267.765.9662
jflongo@zarwin.com
Download V-Card

Office:
Philadelphia, PA
Marlton, NJ

PRACTICE AREAS
Premises and Habitational Liability
Products Liability
Trucking & Transportation
Workers’ Compensation
 
BAR ADMISSIONS
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
 
COURT ADMISSIONS
New Jersey District Court
U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Pennsylvania
 
EDUCATION
B.A., Temple University, 1996
J.D., Thomas M Cooley Law School, 1999
 
MEMBERSHIPS
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
 
HOME CONTACT SITE MAP DISCLAIMER © 2016 Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy P.C.