Uber Technologies and FedEx can continue pursuing civil racketeering claims against Philadelphia lawyer Marc Simon and his law firm, Simon & Simon, after a federal judge rejected arguments that insurance payments prevented Uber from establishing financial injury.
US District Judge Mark Kearney ruled that Uber retained the right to pursue its claims despite liability insurer Farmers having covered certain costs associated with the underlying personal injury litigation.
The decision removes an obstacle to Uber’s claims but does not determine whether the alleged racketeering scheme occurred.
Uber and FedEx accuse Simon & Simon of participating in a coordinated scheme involving personal injury clients and medical providers.
According to the companies, clients were directed towards selected healthcare providers who allegedly exaggerated injuries, recommended unnecessary treatment or produced false medical records that were subsequently used to support lawsuits seeking inflated settlements.
Simon and his firm deny wrongdoing, and the allegations have not been established at trial.
The latest dispute centres on whether Uber can establish the financial injury required to pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO, when an insurer has covered costs connected with the underlying claims.
Simon argued that payments made by Farmers meant Uber had not itself suffered the necessary financial loss.
Judge Kearney rejected that position, concluding that Uber had not surrendered its ability to pursue alleged wrongdoing because it maintained liability insurance and its insurer had made payments on its behalf.
Simon has also argued that Uber and FedEx are improperly using federal racketeering legislation to discourage personal injury litigation against their businesses.
In May, Judge Kearney rejected an earlier attempt by Simon and other defendants to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the companies’ racketeering allegations to proceed.
That decision addressed arguments that the alleged conduct was protected because it arose from litigation activity. The court concluded that the conduct alleged by Uber and FedEx could not automatically be shielded from scrutiny simply because it was connected with legal proceedings.
Simon subsequently brought counterclaims against Uber and FedEx, accusing the companies of pursuing baseless litigation intended to damage his practice. Those claims were dismissed in August.
Following the latest ruling, an Uber spokesperson welcomed the decision and said the company remained confident in its case.
Daniel Rhynhart of Blank Rome, representing Simon and his firm, expressed disappointment with the ruling and said the defendants would continue contesting the allegations.
The case is scheduled for trial in March 2027.
Uber and FedEx have pursued similar racketeering claims involving personal injury lawyers and medical providers in other US jurisdictions, with courts reaching differing conclusions over whether particular allegations satisfy RICO’s requirements.
Those cases illustrate the difficulties companies can face when attempting to use federal racketeering law to challenge conduct associated with personal injury litigation.
Civil RICO claims require plaintiffs to establish statutory elements extending beyond demonstrating that an underlying lawsuit was unsuccessful, exaggerated or disputed.
Plaintiffs generally must establish qualifying racketeering activity and an injury to their business or property caused by the alleged conduct.
The latest ruling adds another issue: whether insurance payments prevent a corporate plaintiff from establishing the financial injury necessary to pursue a civil RICO claim.
For personal injury lawyers, the wider litigation also raises questions about where legitimate representation ends and conduct capable of attracting liability under federal racketeering law begins.
The latest decision does not establish misconduct by Simon or Simon & Simon. It allows Uber and FedEx to continue attempting to prove their allegations as the case moves towards trial.