News & Of Interest

Let’s Go To The Videotape-Plaintiff’s Case Dismissed Because Testimony Doesn’t Match The Video Camera Tape (NY)

In Batista v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 06419 (1st Dept. 2022), plaintiff sued the MTA alleging that he made a left-hand turn in front of a bus, which collided with his rear bumper. Plaintiff testified that the bus was “halfway down the block when he started to make his left-hand turn.”  However, plaintiff’s testimony contradicted the bus driver’s testimony and the video...Read More

Call Your Next Witness – Ryan Eakes of Typhoon Farma

After a short break, the Call Your Next Witness podcast is back, with our first in a series of cannabis-related interviews. The Cannabis Industry was taboo as recently as 10 years ago.  But now, not only is it a blossoming industry, but its becoming mainstream to the point where attorney and insurance conventions are including presentations specific to cannabis and how to insure that risk....Read More

Sanctions Or A Slap-On-The-Wrist? (NY)

In Castillo v. Charles (2022 NY Slip Op 06103), an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the Appellate Division Second Department, department modified the lower courts order striking the plaintiff’s pleadings, as it was “too drastic of a remedy”  (see Turiano v. Schwaber, 180 AD3d 950, 952; see also Arpino v. F.J.F. & Sons Elec. Co., Inc., 102 AD3d at 211). Here, plaintiff...Read More

Another Twist In Florida’s New Summary Judgement Law

Florida’s Supreme Court recently adopted the federal summary judgment standard. Since then, lawyers and the trial and appellate courts have grappled with the twists and turns every major rule change presents. Prior to adoption of the new rule, summary judgment orders were reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s reasoning was irrelevant on appellate review. Recently, Florida’s Fourth District...Read More

Time Will Tell: The Changing Course of Pennsylvania’s Products Liability Jurisprudence

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has accepted for review the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s opinion in Sullivan v. Werner Company, 253 A. 3d 730 (2021), which affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the defendant’s evidence that its product was designed in compliance with industry standards and OSHA regulations. The defendants will argue that Pennsylvania’s common law and evidentiary decisions...Read More

This Means War! NJ Court Examines Whether Cyber Attack Is Excluded Under Policy

In January, 2022, in Merck v. ACE American Insurance Company, a New Jersey Superior Court Law Division Judge ruled that a cyberattack, for insurance coverage purposes, cannot simply be excluded based on a wartime exclusion. What does it mean for insurance companies? A cyberattack is an unfortunate side effect of the advances in technology and it is clear that this form of attack is not going...Read More

Does The Homeowners Exemption Under The Labor Law Extend To A Detached Garage On A Separate Lot? (NY)

New York Labor Law Sections 240 and 241 give workers the right to sue for construction accidents and can impose strict liability on contractors and property owners who violate these sections. Both sections contain exemptions for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” In Rendon v. Callaghan, the Appellate Division, Second Department...Read More

Third Circuit Rejects Policyholder Claims Where Pennsylvania’s UIM Coverage Rejection Requirements Are Satisfied

Uninsured and underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage is not mandatory in Pennsylvania and insureds have the option of rejecting such coverage by signing an approved form. In Keeler v. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed whether a waiver of UIM coverage by insureds was void to permit them to maintain claims against their motorcycle...Read More