Of Interest

Consumer Fraud Act Claim or a Product Liability Claim? NJ Supreme Court Says Why Not Both? (NJ)

In Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation, the Supreme Court grappled with the issue of whether a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim can be based on a claim that is also actionable under the New Jersey Product Liability Act. Sun Chemical Corporation purchased an explosion isolation and suppression system from Fike Corporation to prevent and contain explosions in its new dust collection...Read More

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Requires New Stacking Waiver After Removal of a Vehicle From Policy (PA)

The Pennsylvania appellate court, in Franks v. State Farm, recently held that insurers must obtain a new stacking waiver after the insured removes a vehicle under the policy. The factual pattern in the instant matter was a matter of first impression for Pennsylvania Courts. Specifically, although it is clear that an addition of a vehicle to an existing multi-vehicle policy requires a new...Read More

Report Indicates Nearly 300 Federal Lawsuits Have Been Filed As A Result Of The Coronavirus Pandemic

Nearly 300 federal lawsuits have been filed in the months of March and April 2020, which stem from the COVID-19 pandemic, a number that is likely to continue to expand. Lex Machina found 395 new lawsuits using COVID-19 related terms over the two-month period. Among those suits, 287 stemmed from the COVID-19 crisis, the company reported. Contracts, insurance and employment were the practice...Read More

NY Court Of Appeals Hints That “But Everyone Was Doing It” May Rebut Labor Law Defense of Sole Proximate Cause (NY)

In Biaca-Neto v. Boston Rd II Hous Dev Fund Corp.,the New York Court of Appeals’ recent ruling offers some insight into how courts will rule regarding sole proximate cause defenses in New York Labor Law cases. Under section 240(1) of the New York Labor Law, construction workers who are injured at job sites can recover if the injury is the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate...Read More

EDPA Holds Plaintiff’s Conclusory Allegations of Insurer Bad Faith Insufficient (PA)

In Harris v. Allstate, the plaintiff brought an action against her insurer, alleging the insurer breached the terms of the policy and engaged in bad faith conduct. By way of brief background, it was alleged that Allstate issued a policy to plaintiff. It was further alleged that a covered “peril” occurred, which caused “direct physical damage” to the plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff alleged that...Read More

Insurer Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify Insured for Breach of Contract Claims (PA)

In Atain Insurance Co. v. Xcapes et al., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania analyzed whether Atain Insurance Company (“Atain”) was obligated to, inter alia, defend and indemnify its insured, Xcapes, a home improvement contractor, with respect to state lawsuits filed against Xcapes asserting breach of contract, unjust enrichment/quasi contract, violations...Read More

No Mall Respondeat Superior (NY)

The distinctions between independent contractors and employees can determine liability in many circumstances. Here, we have an appellate decision that found that defendants were not liable for any of plaintiff’s injuries on that distinction. In Athenas v. Simon Prop. Group, LP, plaintiff slipped and fell on floor cleaner in the interior common area of a Long Island mall, in front of a Cohen’s...Read More

Nanty-Glo Rule Saves Pocono Pet Store (PA)

In Lori Monti v. Pet Supplies Plus LLC, et al. plaintiff Lori Monti (“Monti”) tripped and fell outside of a pet store on an alleged sidewalk defect. Monti claimed that there was a dip in the sidewalk, which was surrounded by loose pieces of gravel.  She alleged her walker became entrapped in the dip, which caused her to fall and sustain serious bodily injuries. Monti filed suit against Pet...Read More

Superior Court Declines to Expand Personal Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations (PA)

In Fulano v. Fanjul Corp., the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently considered whether forty-one foreign plaintiffs could establish personal jurisdiction over four corporate defendants all located in different states or countries. Plaintiffs were forty-one Dominican agricultural workers who alleged they became sick after exposure to toxic chemicals while working in the Dominican Republic....Read More

Made-Whole Doctrine Does not Apply to Deductibles or Self-Insured Retentions (NJ)

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently determined that the made-whole doctrine does not apply to first-dollar risk allocated to the insured.  In City of Asbury Park v. Star Insurance Company, the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action against a workers’ compensation insurer seeking determination that it was entitled to full reimbursement before the insurer could assert subrogation...Read More