Managing Partner - Philadelphia Office
Kristine Meindl

Kristine M. Meindl is a partner with Palmer & Barr, P.C. and has over 21 years of extensive experience as a trial attorney. Mrs. Meindl focuses her practice on all aspects of Pennsylvania and New Jersey civil defense litigation. She has accumulated a tremendous amount of trial experience resulting in almost 100 cases tried to verdict.

Mrs. Meindl’s far-reaching jury trial experience has enabled her to form a deep knowledge of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Court systems. She has a unique understanding of how juries interpret evidence, which she uses to assist her clients in evaluating claims before and during litigation. Mrs. Meindl is in the courtroom so often that she has forged relationships that provide access and understanding to the legal system that is unparalleled in the region. She has a keen understanding of the processes and cultures of the insurance defense world and can navigate through other forums such as alternative dispute resolution and arbitration. These skills have afforded Mrs. Meindl to offer efficient and practical counsel on behalf of her clients, which is proven through her results. Additionally, she is frequently asked to present and give insight on her experiences in the courtroom.

Mrs. Meindl concentrates her practice on automotive negligence and premises liability. Her vast automotive experience entails: special investigations, underinsured and uninsured motorist claims, personal injury protection benefit cases and coverage analysis. She has spent years navigating the intricacies of automotive law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and has translated that knowledge into effective representation of several major nationwide insurance companies.

She also focuses her practice on general retail liability, including slip and falls, healthcare premises liability, theft, elevator malfunction, construction defects and assault and battery cases. She has been a lead attorney handling work for a regional food retailer and works on loss prevention with risk management from the ground level up to the top corporate positions.

Mrs. Meindl is admitted to practice law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. She is also admitted into the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the United States District Court of New Jersey. She is also a member of the American Bar Association, Pennsylvania Bar Association and the Pennsylvania Defense Institute.

When she is not practicing law, Kris enjoys spending quality time with her daughter and husband, relaxing at the shore and discovering new restaurants. She is passionate about giving back to organizations that help children, especially through toy and clothing drives.

kris pic.jpg

Email: kristine.meindl@palmerbarr.com

Main: (215) 557-0222 

Fax: (215) 557-0225

Direct: (267) 825-7894

Notable Cases
Representative Matters
  • Defense verdicts in 10 consecutive trials on two separate occasions.
  • Defense verdict in 5-year-old Philadelphia automobile versus pedestrian case wherein Ms. Meindl’s client, the defendant driver was operating his car when a pedestrian came into the roadway resulting in a collision which led to the tragic death of the pedestrian. Mrs. Meindl presented evidence that the plaintiff violated numerous statutes by being in the roadway, at night, and posed a danger to motorists, such as the defendant. She argued that her client had no reasonable expectation that he would be suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with a pedestrian in the roadway at one o’clock in the morning. Ultimately, the jury unanimously agreed, finding in favor of the defendant driver on negligence.
  • Defense verdict in Philadelphia County case involving a rear-end accident where the plaintiff claimed that the significant impact, which totaled his car, caused him to strike his face resulting in an orbital fracture necessitating surgical repair. Ms. Meindl contested liability taking the position that the plaintiff caused the accident by suddenly stopping on I-676. Additionally, she argued that the plaintiff's injuries were not related to the accident as the facial fracture was old and was only an incidental finding after the accident happened. After 4 days of trial, the jury reached a verdict finding the plaintiff was more at fault than the defendant for causing the rear-end crash after suddenly stopping.
  • Defense verdict on negligence in a rear end accident wherein the defendant initiated a U-turn and was struck on the driver’s side by the Plaintiff, who was attempting to pass the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made a U-turn directly in front of him striking his vehicle.
  • Defense verdict in SEPTA trolley accident where the defendant turned left at an intersection striking the SEPTA trolley. Plaintiff, a passenger on the trolley was 39 years old and went to the emergency room the day after the accident with complaints of low back pain radiating down to both legs, rating 9/10. Plaintiff underwent a course of therapy and treatment for nearly one year. At trial, Plaintiff alleged permanent and serious injuries including a lumbar herniation confirmed by MRI, as well as shoulder and knee injuries. Despite the young Plaintiff’s full tort status and the alleged serious and permanent injuries, the jury determined that the Plaintiff was not injured in the accident and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense.
  • Defense verdict in case against two Plaintiffs, who were both bound by the limited tort threshold. After being rear-ended by the defendant, both Plaintiffs presented to the emergency room the day after the accident and followed up for treatment spanning nearly two (2) years for their alleged injuries. MRI studies for both Plaintiffs revealed herniations of the spine and both Plaintiffs underwent testing confirming nerve damage. One of the Plaintiffs even underwent two series of epidural injections. Ms. Meindl convinced the jury that Plaintiffs were not entitled to any recovery.
  • Win in case with a 26 year old Plaintiff whose vehicle was struck by the defendant while the defendant was exiting a driveway. The full tort Plaintiff presented for rehabilitation on approximately fifty (50) occasions over the course of 6 months and alleged injuries to the cervical, thoracic, and lumbosacral spine including radiculitis, myalgia, and myositis. Plaintiff was recommended to undergo epidural injections and even surgery in the future for his permanent injuries. Plaintiff also asserted a claim for outstanding medical expenses. Despite the alleged serious nature of the claim, the jury sided found no serious injury and awarded stipulated excess medical bills.

  • Unanimous defense verdict after just thirty minutes of deliberation in case with two Plaintiffs that were passengers in a vehicle hit head on by the defendant. Plaintiffs, who were both full tort, received five (5) months of treatment and underwent MRI studies confirming alleged positive findings. One Plaintiff claimed an exacerbation of a serious medical condition called Sarcoidosis, which caused the Plaintiff to be hospitalized for three (3) days after the accident. The symptoms associated with the disease included fatigue, shortness of breath and blurry vision. The jury found that neither Plaintiff proved any injury related to the accident with defendant.
  • Defense verdict in alleged pedestrian versus automobile case where plaintiff alleged that the defendant violently struck the plaintiff in the knees with his vehicle while the two were engaged in a verbal argument. Plaintiff claimed general spinal injuries, but more significantly, an injury to her knee that resulted in daily pain with physical limitations, including being active with her two young children. Plaintiff treated for 7 months and her expert opined that she sustained an ACL tear with acute contusion to the left knee, all of which he related to the accident at issue. Plaintiff’s doctor also noted that plaintiff’s right knee MRI was suggestive of partial versus complete rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Ms. Meindl proved that the defendant was not negligent and that the accident did not happen and there was no contact between the plaintiff’s body and the defendant’s vehicle.
  • Defense verdict on negligence in a case where the plaintiff, a pedestrian, claims that they were struck by the defendant’s SUV while walking along a roadside. Plaintiff suffered very significant, life-threatening injuries, including five fractures of the body and the loss of a front tooth with resulted in permanent physical limitations and scarring. The jury found that the defendant was not negligent in causing the accident since plaintiff violated state statutes governing the actions of pedestrians and improperly entered the roadway.
  • Defense verdict on liability in an intersectional dispute where the plaintiff sustained significant injuries including a compression fracture of the spine. She treated with spinal surgeons and neurologists and claimed to have significant daily pain that limited almost every physical activity.

  • Education
    • Colorado State University
    • London School of Economics
    • Villanova University School of Law
  • Memberships
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Pennsylvania Defense Institute
    • Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel (Executive Board Member)
  • Admissions & Affiliations
    • State Bar, Pennsylvania
    • State Bar, New Jersey
    • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • United States District Court for New Jersey
  • Honors & Awards
    • Super Lawyers (2020-2024)
    • Super Lawyers Rising Star (2013)
    • Judge Pro Temp Philadelphia County
  • Areas of Focus
    • Automobile Insurance Defense
    • Underinsured/Uninsured Motorist Actions
    • Premises Liability Defense
    • General Litigation - Personal Injury
  • Recent Cases & News
    • Defense verdict in 5-year-old Philadelphia automobile versus pedestrian case wherein Ms. Meindl’s client, the defendant driver was operating his car when a pedestrian came into the roadway resulting in a collision which led to the tragic death of the pedestrian. Mrs. Meindl presented evidence that the plaintiff violated numerous statutes by being in the roadway, at night, and posed a danger to motorists, such as the defendant. She argued that her client had no reasonable expectation that he would be suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with a pedestrian in the roadway at one o’clock in the morning. Ultimately, the jury unanimously agreed, finding in favor of the defendant driver on negligence.