This past week, in DeRicco v Maidman, the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a trial court decision that denied a defendant patient’s motion to dismiss an orthodontist’s defamation claims against them. The claims were brought by the orthodontist and his professional corporation against the patient and his parents after the parents posted an...Read More
Finally, some clarity. A unanimous New York high court decided this week to uphold the Suitability and Best Interests in Life Insurance and Annuity Transactions Amendment to Insurance Regulation 187. The Department of Financial Services (DFS) in 2018 added this amendment because of concerns that the increasing complexity involved in purchasing annuities and life insurance made consumers more...Read More
As attorneys, through all the wins and losses we experience in our careers, few victories match the sheer relief one experiences upon passing the bar exam. And some new WCM attorney got to experience that feeling this week.
Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s new class of first year associates who sat for the New York Bar Exam in July all received some good news Thursday morning — all 5...Read More
Just because a product was purchased almost 20 years ago, does not get manufacturers off the hook. In Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 WL 3457822 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2022), plaintiffs brought a strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claim against the manufacturer and seller of a six-gallon aquarium tank that caused a fire and damaged the plaintiffs’ home.
In 2002 or 2003,...Read More
Effective immediately, “the following sentence is added to rules 1.530(a) and 12.530(a): To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule.” In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530, 47 Fla. L. Weekly S...Read More
In Dukich v. Ikea US Retail LLC, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that a defendant cannot be liable for consumer fraud or negligence in connection with a product recall because none of the plaintiffs established any false or misleading statement from defendant.
In 2016 and 2017 Ikea issued two separate recalls on its “MALM” line of dressers when it became aware of deaths and...Read More
When a plaintiff slips and falls on property owned by a town, the town may not be the party on the hook. Generally, if a defendant is able to sufficiently establish that it did not occupy, or control the location where the accident occurred, it will not be held liable for the alleged injuries. In certain circumstances they must also establish they did not make special use of the premise to...Read More
In Nelson v. American Honda 2 1:18-cv-000210 (W.D. Pa. August 23, 2022), the Court denied a Plaintiff’s motion to preclude testimony of an expert witness who would testify on the impact a helmet would have in a fatal all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident. Seventeen-year-old Dylan Fehlman died while driving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) manufactured by American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (Honda)...Read More