.: Home :.

.: About Us :.

.: Hot Topics :.

.: Services :.

Home  |  About Us  |  Hot Topics  |   Services 

Your Law Firm in Pittsburgh

Behrend & Ernsberger
355 Fifth Avenue
Park Building, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA. 15222
Licensed in Pa. Only

Call Us at 412.391.2515 regarding any of the following matters:

Attorneys:

Kenneth W. Behrend (1924-2009)

Barbara J. Ernsberger

Daniel W. Ernsberger

Kenneth R. Behrend

Michael A. Nagy

Kevin M. Miller

Richard T. Ernsberger

Mr. Behrend was admitted to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in January, 1951. He was admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the United States Court of Claims, and the Supreme Court of the United States. He had been specially admitted to practice before the state courts of Ohio, the Supreme Court of Ohio and the County Court of Contra Costa County in the State of California.

Mr. Behrend was a member of the American Bar Association, American Trial Lawyers Association, Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Allegheny County Bar Association.
Mr. Behrend was a founding partner of the law firm of Behrend and Ernsberger, and was a shareholder in its successor, Behrend and Ernsberger, P.C. with offices in the City of Pittsburgh.
Mr. Behrend was, and always had been, engaged in the general practice of the law. He had represented individuals in their legal problems in matters that range alphabetically from automobile accidents to zoning matters.
Mr. Behrend had practiced law with the Legal Aid Society of Allegheny County when it was the precursor of both the Public Defender and the Neighborhood Legal Services. There he handled many indigent criminal trials, both jury and non-jury. He had represented clients in nearly all types of criminal cases, including murder and excluding drug dealers, rape and lottery.

Mr. Behrend had practiced family and estate law and represented clients in divorce, custody, and support trials. He had procured adoptions. He had prepared wills, trusts, family agreements and entered into will contests.
Mr. Behrend had engaged in real estate practice involving purchases, sale and construction of real estate from modest homes to multi-million dollar housing developments. He had litigated real estate cases concerning purchases, sales, construction contracts and their performance, and deceptive sales practices in state, federal and bankruptcy courts. He had successfully litigated against H.U.D., its employees and others for unlawfully attempting to fine and divest ownership of a H.U.D. sponsored 236 project located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania known as Colonial Oaks.

Mr. Behrend represents clients in personal injury claims, automobile accidents, slip and fall, industrial injuries, product injuries and medical malpractice and hospital injuries. Mr. Behrend represents clients in insurance policy disputes, interpretation, bad faith refusal and deceptive sales. Mr. Behrend counsels, researches and advises on class action cases.
Mr. Behrend had done appellate work in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States Court of Claims, and Petitions to the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. Behrend had handled numerous cases in which new case law was established. In the case of Medvecz v.Choi, 569 F.2d 1221 (3rd. Cir.) 1977, it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, without Pennsylvania precedent, that Pennsylvania law required that a jury charge requested for abandonment and punitive damages be made where a doctor, anesthesiologist, could not explain his departure from an operation without a permissible substitute.

In the case of Behrend v. State of Ohio, 379 N.E.2d 617 (1977), Mr. Behrend represented thirteen (13) architectural students of Ohio University after the school of architecture had been terminated mid-course. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in a case of first impression, made the student-school relationship subject to an implied in law contract based on school bulletins, letters and promises. The students were permitted to claim damages for the dislocation and termination of the school of architecture.

In the case of Interthal v. State Farm Insurance, No. 98-CV-1301, it was decided by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Donetta Ambrose, that an insurance company is subject to suit for bad faith in the investigation of the claim by a company adjuster and by an asserted independent expert engineer. This was decided for the federal system from a state court decision entered during the pendency of a defense motion for summary judgment.