Cozen O’Connor: Evans, Samantha

Samantha Evans

Member

Philadelphia

(215) 665-4106

(215) 665-2013

Samantha Evans practices in the area of insurance coverage and has handled cases involving disputes under third party liability policies, medical professional liability coverage, and automobile liability policies. Samantha also concentrates her practice on the defense of product liability and construction defect matters. Samantha has handled numerous arbitrations and mediations in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Samantha earned her undergraduate degree from Kings College-Wilkes-Barre, where she graduated first in her class. She earned her law degree, magna cum laude, from Villanova University School of Law, where she participated in the Theodore Reimel Moot Competition and Amnesty International. Prior to joining the firm, Samantha served as a summer associate with the firm.

Experience

News

Cozen O’Connor Elects 19 Associates to Membership

April 09, 2018

Cozen O’Connor has elected 19 associates to membership in the firm. The management committee appointed this qualified group of attorneys to membership based on demonstrated professionalism, leadership, dedication, and loyalty to Cozen O’Connor.

Publications

“Advertising” versus “Solicitation:” The Impact on Available Advertising Injury Coverage (Insurance Coverage Law Bulletin) (2012) 

 

The Growing Business of Marijuana [Cannabis Alert]

July 26, 2017

Samantha Evans discusses the problem marijuana businesses are facing getting property and liability insurance coverage.

Pennsylvania High Court Rules First Manifestation Trigger Applies to Property Damage Claims [Global Insurance Alert]

December 22, 2014

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. St. John, et al., 2014 WL 7088712 (December 15, 2014), has affirmed that a first manifestation trigger applies to property damage claims under a CGL policy, triggering the single policy in effect when damage first manifests. St. John also confirmed that the multiple or continuous trigger adopted in J.H. France Refractories v. Allstate Ins. Co., 534 Pa. 29 (1993), which triggers all policies on a risk from exposure through manifestation, is unique to claims involving asbestos or other similarly latent diseases.

The Potential Liabilities and Insurance Coverage Implications of Solar Panels [Claims Journal]

May 19, 2014

Samantha Evans discusses The Potential Liabilities and Insurance Coverage Implications of Solar Panels in Claims Journal. Samantha writes, “Solar panels are quickly becoming a fixture in our everyday lives. Whether driving down a country road or the busiest highway, you will see solar panels dotting the roofs of commercial buildings and residential homes alike. Comprised of photovoltaic cells, solar panels harness and convert the sun’s energy into usable electricity otherwise generated by the use of oil, coal and “dirtier” fossil fuels. Solar panels offer an attractive, alternative “green” source of energy for eco-conscious individuals and businesses.” To read the whole article, click here.

Pennsylvania Federal Court Precludes Testimony of Proposed Bad Faith Expert for the Second Time [Global Insurance Alert]

July 08, 2013

In the recent decision of Schifino v. Geico General Ins. Co. et al., 2013 WL 2404115 (W.D.Pa. 2013), and for the second time in less than a year, the district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania precluded a plaintiff from offering expert testimony supporting an insurer’s alleged bad faith. The district court reasoned that expert testimony addressing the reasonableness of an insurer’s claims handling in denying a claim was unnecessary as a matter of evidence and interfered with the fact finding role of the jury.

Spoiled Rotten: Courts Are Split on Coverage for Contaminated Foods and Products [Law Journal News Letters]

March 02, 2009

Spoiled Rotten: Courts Are Split on Coverage for Contaminated Foods and Products - Law Journal News Letters - In a series of recent cases addressing coverage for contaminated foods and similar losses, jurisdictions have split on the availability of insurance. Courts excluding coverage have relied on language traditionally used to exclude business and product-related losses, including the "your product" and "impaired property" exclusions. Other courts have rejected the application of these exclusions if it is unclear that the damage was to the insured’s product and if

Industry Sectors

Education

  • Villanova University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 2006
  • King's College, B.A., 2001
  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania