Stephen L. Banko, Jr.

Stephen L. Banko, Jr.

Office:Harrisburg, PA
Phone:(717) 760-7501
Cell:(717) 554-1408

Stephen Banko represents insurance companies and insureds in litigation, including first- and third-party claims, bad faith and coverage issues. Steve has extensive experience in representing insurance companies in the investigation of suspected fraudulent first-party property and automobile claims by obtaining Examinations Under Oath and authoring coverage opinion letters covering a wide range of topics, including arson. He has represented insurance companies and agents in administrative proceedings involving policy rate hearings, policy cancellations and non-renewals and agent terminations and rehabilitations before regulatory authorities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

Steve has extensive experience in handling a variety of complex litigation matters including professional liability, products liability, construction accidents and defects, insurance bad faith and premises liability. He has represented national companies in premises liability matters and represents insurance companies in both underinsured and uninsured arbitrations. Steve is a veteran of more than 60 jury trials to verdict and has appeared in courts in more than 30 counties in Central and Eastern Pennsylvania. He has appeared pro hac vice in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia.

A veteran of the United State Marine Corps, Steve is AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell and since 1998, has been certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trail Advocacy, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court accredited agency.

Military Service:

  • United State Marine Corps, Corporal (E-4)


  • Dickinson School of Law (J.D.)
  • Moravian College (B.A.)
  • Lehigh County Community College (A.A.)


  • AV Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rated
  • Civil Trial Advocate Certification, National Board of Trial Advocacy


Bar Admissions:

  • Pennsylvania

Court Admissions:

  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Professional Affiliations:

  • Pennsylvania Bar Association
  • Dauphin County Bar Association
  • Cumberland County Bar Association
  • Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Education Committee (former member)
  • Pennsylvania Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Claims Committee (former member)

Representative Matters:

  • In Pennsylvania American Water Co. v. Everhart & Hoover Power Line Construction, Inc., et al., a unanimous Cumberland County, PA jury in Pennsylvania returned a defense verdict against Plaintiff and in favor of Everhart & Hoover Power Line Construction, Inc. Plaintiff, a water company, claimed that Everhart & Hoover was negligent in striking a main water transmission line while Everhart & Hoover was performing excavation services in connection with a nearby road construction project. Plaintiff claimed that Everhart & Hoover failed to adhere to the requirements of the Pennsylvania One Call Statute. Everhart & Hoover, however, was able to demonstrate to the jury that it was Plaintiff’s locator who had failed to locate the water main in a proper fashion and that Everhart & Hoover had complied with all requirements of the PA One Call Statute and its regulations. Plaintiff had demanded damages in the amount of $101,347.83.
  • Obtained summary judgment for a general contractor on the basis that it was the statutory employer of Plaintiff and, therefore, immune from suit under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. In Tufaro v. Milestone Developers, Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor installing drywall during the construction of a new residence, slipped and fell on ice claiming various injuries. Plaintiff sued the general contractor on the theory that it was responsible to provide a safe workplace for its workers. The Motion for Summary Judgment was filed on the basis that the general contractor was the statutory employer of Plaintiff under the relatively recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision in Patton v. Worthington Associates. After briefing and oral argument, the Court in Carbon County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of Steve’s client, entering summary judgment in favor of the general contractor and against the Plaintiff.
  • In Merrell v. Ebling, a unanimous Berks County, Pennsylvania jury returned a verdict in the amount of $5,000 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in an automobile accident case where Plaintiff had elected the limited tort option. Plaintiff was operating a vehicle which was rear-ended by Defendant. Plaintiff contended that he suffered severe and permanent injuries which would entitle him to the recovery of non-economic damages. Plaintiff sought $53,000 in uncompensated wage loss. The Defendant admitted that she was negligent and that her negligence caused the motor vehicle accident. Defendant denied, however, that her negligence caused the injuries of which Plaintiff complained. The jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury and, therefore, was not entitled to the recovery of non-economic damages. The jury did award Plaintiff, however, $5,000 in wage loss; less than one tenth of that sought.