Litigation

Bad Day At The Track For Plaintiff In Its Attempt To Have Its Declaratory Judgment Action Decided In State Court

In Greenwood Racing v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co. and Steadfast Insurance Co., the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Greenwood Racing’s (“Greenwood”) motion to remand the case to state court. The court reasoned that although it could have abstained from jurisdiction, there were no novel issues of state law requiring remand. Greenwood, like...Read More

What Happens When Trial Court Permits Plaintiff’s Doctor to Testify that the Defense’s Independent Medical Doctor is paid by an insurance company? A mistrial, according to New York’s First Department

Evidence that a defendant carries liability insurance is generally inadmissible at trial, so when a trial witness spills the beans as to the existence of insurance, a mistrial may be warranted. While a mere reference to insurance will not always result in reversal, New York’s First Department recently held that notifying a jury that an insurance company is generally responsible for hiring...Read More

Defendant’s Motion To Amend Its Answer To Admit Averments It Previously Denied Two Years Previously Includes A Novel Attempt To Avoid Punitive Damages At Trial (PA)

A Lackawanna County judge has granted a defendant’s motion to amend his answer to admit averments that he had previously denied when filing the answer more than two years earlier.  In Bellersen v. Gill, Plaintiff, Gina Bellersen, was injured in a rear- end, chain collision motor vehicle accident in October 2018.   Defendant Gill was the last vehicle in the chain, and upon filing his initial...Read More

Loose Wheel On The Shopping Cart Goes Round And Round (NY)

In Scalia v. King Kullen Grocery Co. Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06384 (2d Dept. 2021), Plaintiff was using one of King Kullen’s shopping carts and began to push it forward when one of the wobbly wheels came into contact with a crack on the sidewalk in front of the supermarket, causing her to fall and injure herself. The Second Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kullen’s summary...Read More

Bad Faith Underinsured Motorist Claim Requires at Least SOME Bad Faith (PA)

In a recent Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania case, Bond v. Geico, the court dismissed an underinsured motorist claim against the insurer where the policyholder brought vague, unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations of bad faith in the claim handling. Plaintiff in the case was an underinsured motorist under Pennsylvania statute who sought underinsured coverage from Geico (his own UIM...Read More

Telephone Pole Owners Not Necessarily Owners Under Labor Law (NY)

In Villalta v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al, the First Department recently considered the application of Labor Law 240(1) strict liability as it applies to telephone poles. In that matter, the plaintiff was a cable-service repairman who was injured in a fall while inspecting storm-damaged cable equipment. Specifically, he had propped his ladder against a telephone pole...Read More

Tick Tock On The Clock – No Constructive Notice In NJ

The Appellate Division recently ruled that where liquid was on the lobby floor for one minute and twenty-three seconds and no employee was in close enough proximity to the site of the spill, no jury could possibly find constructive notice and therefore summary judgment is appropriate. McKiski v. Harrah’s Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC 2021 WL 4428924 at *3 (2021). In McKiski, plaintiff’s...Read More

New York Court Extends The Scope Of Protection Under Labor Law 240(1)

In Hensel v. Aviator FSC, Inc., the Second Department recently addressed the scope of “falling object” liability in deciding whether a plaintiff’s work entitled him to Labor Law §240(1) protection. Plaintiff in that case alleged that he was injured while loading heavy soccer boards into the back of a box truck. Plaintiff alleged that as he stood next to a forklift, the 100-pound board slid off...Read More

Defining Construction Work Under Labor Law 241(6) (NY)

When a plaintiff becomes injured on a construction project, it is important to know exactly what kind of work the plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident, and the purpose of the work, to determine liability under Labor Law 241(6). Labor Law 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to those...Read More

Good Maintenance Practices And Record Keeping Can Help Avoid Liability In A New York Slip And Fall Case (NY)

The First Department’s decision in Velocci v. Stop & Shop, 188 A.D. 3d 436 , provides a notable reminder of the importance of inspection and maintenance efforts to prevent liability for slip and fall accidents. In that case, plaintiff fell on a puddle of water on the floor in front of an ice machine in a supermarket. He and his wife had shopped there frequently and had never used the ice...Read More