News & Of Interest

The First Department Wants You To Think Twice Before Hitting Send (NY)

Reaching a settlement via email is easier than you think, so be careful. In a recent decision by New York’s First Department, an email reflecting an agreement between attorneys is sufficiently subscribed for purposes of CPLR §2104 even where the attorney does not retype their name above the signature block. In Philadelphia Insurance Indemnity Company v. Kendall, 197 A.D.3d 75 (1st Dep’t 2021),...Read More

Insurers Permitted To Intervene In Human Trafficking Suits (PA)

On October 7, 2021, the Pennsylvania Superior Court permitted insurers to intervene in cases brought against insureds arising out of alleged sex trafficking operations. A.H. v. Roosevelt Inn, LLC, et al, 1797 EDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 7, 2021). The plaintiff, an alleged victim of human trafficking, sued numerous defendants asserting that she was “exploited by traffickers of commercial sex...Read More

You Can Run, You Can Hide, But You Can’t Use This Escape Clause (NJ)

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently found an ‘escape clause’ in a garage policy issued to a car dealership that eliminated coverage to a class of the dealership’s customers void on public policy grounds even though the driver of the vehicle had personal auto insurance that met the statutory minimum. Huggins v. Aquilar, 246 N.J. 75 (2021). Mary Aquilar left her car with Trend Motors, Ltd....Read More

If At First You Don’t Succeed. . .

We’ve all had one, a pro se condo commando files a multi-hundred page kitchen sink complaint. The first reaction is to brush it off. Then one gets to thinking . . . Is there a duty to defend? To indemnify? If so, for what? Two, four, six or more years later defense counsel says yes, we want this over too — we are trying, we really are but he keeps filing stuff, the guy won’t go away … In...Read More

Reasonable Expectations Doctrine Must Be Alleged To Overcome Motion To Dismiss (PA)

On October 1, 2021, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Jeffers Farms, Inc. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, et al., analyzed whether an insurance policy’s “prior acts exclusion” barred coverage. By way of brief background, Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. (“Liberty”) issued two insurance policies providing directors, officers and company...Read More

Should Attorneys Cross Examine Their Own Clients At Deposition? (NY)

While probably not a tool used, even considered, nearly enough, a lawyer questioning his or her client during a deposition can be a great way to clarify facts and set things up for anticipated motion practice. The words from the 1973 song Ooh La La by Faces seem appropriate, “I wish that I knew what I know now…” when my client was deposed. Rule 3113 of the CPLR frames the complete context of a...Read More

Look Out Below–How Much Height Differential Is Required For A Falling Object Claim Under Labor Law 240(1)? (NY)

When a lawsuit alleges that a plaintiff’s injuries are caused by an object falling from the same relative height as plaintiff, does the claim satisfy the elevation hazard requirements of Labor Law §240(1)? Liability under Labor Law §240(1) does not automatically apply just because an object fell and injured a worker. The law requires that a plaintiff prove that at the time the object fell, it...Read More

Burden Of Proof To Dispute Consent Under New York Vehicle And Traffic Law §388 (NY)

In Johari v. Patel, the Supreme Court, Kings County recently addressed whether a vehicle owner was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether the co-defendant driver was operating a vehicle without the owner’s consent. Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle and allegedly sustained injuries in a car accident. Plaintiff sued both drivers involved in the accident and the owner of the...Read More