Damages

Doesn’t Take Much to Get Decent Bucks for Aggravation (NY)

Oftentimes we see a plaintiff complaining that harm recently suffered caused exacerbation or aggravation of a prior existing, symptomatic or asymptomatic, condition. Questions relating to the impact of such claims on past and future pain and suffering are left to a jury to decide. Given the subjective nature of such damages, as accustomed, we look to precedent for guidance and enlightenment on...Read More

High Stress Job? No Damages (NY)

In New York, the plaintiff in Mehmeti v Miller commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained to his head and left arm as a result of a motor accident. Following a jury trial on the issue of damages, the jury found that the plaintiff had suffered a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body function, organ, or member and awarded the plaintiff $50,000 for 4...Read More

Prize Fighter Yoel Romero is Vindicated by the New Jersey Courts (NJ)

The matter of Yoel Romero v. Gold Star Distribution, LLC arose out of the sale of a dietary supplement manufactured and distributed by Gold Star. Romero is an MMA fighter who competed in the UFC, the highest level of competition in the MMA. He is also a former world champion freestyle wrestler who won a silver medal at the 2000 Olympic Games. Gold Star is a dietary supplement company whose...Read More

Discoverability of Litigation Funding Information (NY)

Coronado v. Veolia N. Am. Inc., No. 450319/2019 (NY Cty. Sup. Ct. Apr. 5, 2021) is a personal injury case, wherein Plaintiff alleges she was entering an Access-A-Ride when another vehicle collided with it, thereby causing her to fall and sustain injuries. Plaintiff brought suit against the driver of the colliding vehicle and other parties. The motion before the court involved a discovery...Read More

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upends Consumer Protection Laws, Now Sharply Favoring Plaintiffs (PA)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently overturned decades of established law in the consumer protection area, resulting in increased exposure to defendants in consumer transactions. The 4-3 decision in Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. overturned decades of precedent which formerly required a plaintiff to show the state of mind of the actor with respect to a false or misleading...Read More

Sometimes, De Minimus Contacts Equals Maximum Damage Award! (PA)

In a recent en banc opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that a couple should not be prevented from suing in their choice of venue even where only a small percentage of the defendant company’s $1.4 billion in revenue is derived there. In Hangey, et al. v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., et al. plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought suit after Mr. Hangey fell off a Husqvarna...Read More

No Bad Faith, No Consequential Damages! Florida Supreme Court Denies Insured’s Attempt To Recover Extra-Contractual Consequential Damages in a First-Party Property Claim

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Florida punctuates well-established federal precedent that consequential damages in insurance disputes are not recoverable absent a separate action for bad faith.  In Citizens Property Ins. Corp. v. Manor House LLC, et al, Manor House, owner of rental apartment buildings, filed an action against its property insurer for breach of contract and fraud...Read More

You’re No Expert! $6.3 Million Verdict Tossed Because Expert Testimony on Pain and Suffering had No Sufficient Basis (PA)

In Cowher et al. v. Kodali et al., the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted a retrial because of erroneously admitted expert testimony.  Cowher, brought a wrongful death and survival medical malpractice claim against the doctor that failed to recognize her husband’s heart condition, which ultimately led to his fatal heart attack.  Mr. Cowher went to see defendant Dr. Sobhan Kodali after he...Read More

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Refuses to Implement Bright Line Rule on Defective Jury Awards

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mader v. Duquesne Light Company, refused to implement a bright line rule with respect to mandating a trial court’s options when a jury returns an inconsistent, favorable plaintiff verdict with an inconsistent damages award. Instead, the Court indicated that trial courts largely have broad discretion in terms of requiring new trials for damages. As...Read More

In Pennsylvania, Homeowners Need Not Show Diminution In Value When Calculating Damages for Defective Construction Claims

In Woullard v. Sanner Concrete and Supply, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently affirmed the lower court’s damages ruling, stating that the plaintiff homeowners were not required to present evidence of diminution in value of their home, attributable to the defective work, as part of calculating damages. Plaintiff homeowners hired several contractors to perform work on the home’s stonework,...Read More