Elit R. Felix, II

Elit R. Felix, II

Office:Philadelphia, PA
Phone:(215) 931-5870
Cell:(215) 803-1720

Elit Felix has an active nationwide insurance coverage practice that primarily involves underlying toxic torts, environmental pollution, and other complex claims, including construction defects and professional liability.

Before joining the firm in 1990, Elit had concentrated his practice in the defense of medical malpractice and products liability cases in state and federal courts throughout Pennsylvania. He also counseled hospitals and medical staffs about issues of health law and credentialing during that first decade of his practice. A significant portion of his present trial practice continues to include such matters and has expanded to include the defense of other professionals, including attorneys.

His primary concentration in the law of insurance coverage involves counseling insurers regarding issues of the scope and availability of coverage, litigating coverage disputes in the courts, and consulting over and crafting proposed policy language, particularly with insurers seeking to amend, clarify, or extend the scope of coverage under their commercial policies. Elit has experience drafting special-purpose provisions for particular circumstances or policyholders, coordinating the defense of national insurance programs, and providing department-wide guidance on issues of claims-handling and contract interpretation.

This broad familiarity with both case law and individual cases throughout the country has resulted in a deep and diverse experience of both insurance coverage and professional liability issues and also management of complex claims and litigation in these arenas of catastrophic losses and still evolving law.


  • Law School of the University of Pennsylvania (J.D.)
  • University of Pittsburgh (B.A., summa cum laude)


  • AV Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated

Bar Admissions:

  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions:

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

Professional Affiliations:

  • Philadelphia Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Bar Association

Speaking Engagements and Presentations:

  • Selected Topics in Pennsylvania Legal Malpractice and Liability Law

Articles and Publications:

Representative Matters:

  • Rohm and Haas Company v. Continental Casualty Company, et al - Represented insurer in an environmental coverage case involving waste-disposal sites on a manufacturer’s premises and remediation costs in hundreds of millions of dollars. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the jury’s verdict for Elit’s insurer-clients and, for the first time, formally adopted the “known loss doctrine,” under which an insured is not entitled to coverage if it “knew or should have known” of a likelihood of losses that would fall within the insurer’s limits.
  • Wagner v. Erie Insurance Company - Represented insurer in a coverage case involving environmental contamination due to leaking underground gasoline storage tank at a service station. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the station owner and entered judgment for Elit’s insurance-company client on multiple bases: gasoline leaking from a storage tank was within the definition of “pollutant” in an “absolute pollution exclusion” despite not being named specifically in the definition; the owner of the service station was a businessman who had a duty to read the insurance policies and seek answers to any questions he had; and, the exclusion applied equally to property damage coverage and to personal injury coverage. (The Supreme Court affirmed per curiam.)
  • St. Joseph Medical Center v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund - Represented an insurer in a matter involving a male hospital technician who had sexually abused female patients during radiologic studies. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Elit’s client did not owe professional liability coverage to the hospital that employed the technician because the claim of negligent hiring and supervision of the technician did not involve the kind of specialized medical skill and training necessary for a medical malpractice claim. Instead, this was deemed a general liability claim. (The Supreme Court affirmed per curiam.)
  • Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner US, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, et al. - Represented an insurer in a matter where the Superior Court reversed an entry of summary judgment for Elit’s insurer-client in a construction-defect case. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reinstated that judgment because, where a large manufacturing facility was damaged during construction, the faulty workmanship that caused the damage could not be an “accident” within the definition of “occurrence” in a general liability. The Court held that faulty workmanship did not have the “degree of fortuity” that is essential for general liability coverage as opposed to coverage under a performance bond.