Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Long Island, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. Results Speak for Themselves We are litigators who think practically not abstractly. We are trial lawyers who understand coverage and coverage lawyers who try cases. We are advisors who help you manage your risk. PRACTICE AREAS Our Practice Areas Retail & Hospitality Dram Shop Commercial Auto & Trucking Products Liability Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Premises Liability Insurance Coverage Fraud Investigation and Prosecution First Party Property Fine Art and Specie Employment Law Education and Not for Profit Law Construction Litigation Commercial Litigation Casualty Defense Appellate Subrogation and Recovery Sports and Recreational Liability Professional Liability Retail & Hospitality Dram Shop Commercial Auto & Trucking Products Liability Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Premises Liability Insurance Coverage Fraud Investigation and Prosecution First Party Property Fine Art and Specie Employment Law Education and Not for Profit Law Construction Litigation Commercial Litigation Casualty Defense Appellate Subrogation and Recovery Sports and Recreational Liability Professional Liability OUR VISION What sets Wade Clark Mulcahy apart Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Long Island, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. ATTORNEYS Latest News New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures Experienced Parter Scott A. Lazar Joins Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s New Jersey Office First Department Affirms Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market, Holding the “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases First Department Reaffirms Litigants’ Right to Move Without Prior Judicial Approval WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute First Department Rules that Circumstances Do Matter in Evaluating AI Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures Experienced Parter Scott A. Lazar Joins Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s New Jersey Office First Department Affirms Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market, Holding the “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases First Department Reaffirms Litigants’ Right to Move Without Prior Judicial Approval WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute First Department Rules that Circumstances Do Matter in Evaluating AI Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment?

Dennis M. Wade Partner New York dwade@wcmlaw.com +1 212 267 1900 Professional Experience Dennis M. Wade has litigated headline-worthy cases in state and federal courts across the country and in international forums around the world for more than four decades. A skilled trial and appellate lawyer, Dennis handles complex commercial and insurance law defense matters, in particular, high-exposure casualty cases, complicated insurance coverage disputes, and the defense of errors and omissions and professional liability claims. Dennis handles fine art and in specie matters for both domestic and international insurers, including a recent notable case in which he successfully defended a major art insurer against a $42 million claim, from judgment in the trial court through appeals to New York’s Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals (the state high court) and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court. Over the past 20 years, he has helped recover stolen art and diamonds throughout the United States and has collaborated with counsel to achieve recoveries in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Because of his background and experience, clients frequently call on him to investigate and advise them in matters involving suspected fraudulent activity. Dennis has been a trial lawyer his entire career. He served for nearly seven years with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, including as Deputy Chief, Rackets Bureau, where he investigated and prosecuted organized crime cases involving high-level members of New York’s Gambino and Bonanno crime families, violent felons from gangs such as The Ghost Shadows and Flying Dragons, and corrupt public officials. He entered private practice as a name partner in a midsize Manhattan firm, handling a diverse range of defense litigation. The matters Dennis handles are often sophisticated and multifaceted, and his strength as an advocate lies in his keen ability to make the complex simple and understandable. A master of clear and compelling storytelling — a skill he attributes not to his time practicing law but to his study of Shakespeare — Dennis’s direct and practiced approach enables him to clearly and persuasively convey the facts and issues at the heart of disputes to clients, judges, juries and adversaries. His successes on behalf of clients are as much a result of his persuasive advocacy as they are due to his abiding belief that clients are critical partners in a common endeavor — charting the best path to an optimal outcome — and that the strategy of a case should be a cooperative effort. With the other named partners, Dennis founded WCM in 1994 to provide all the firm’s clients with this kind of personal and collaborative representation. Dennis has been called on to appear as an expert witness on points of American insurance law in the High Court of England and Wales. He also lectures frequently on insurance topics, including “The Art of Insuring Art” and “Art at Risk,” as well as on trial strategy and techniques, and has published extensively on topics such as settling damage claims, bad faith rulings and examinations under oath. Select Representations Successfully defended a major art insurer against a $42 million claim in a case that ultimately went to the United States Supreme Court. Successfully defended Lloyd’s of London underwriters, through summary judgment and on appeal, against a $2 million claim under a jeweler’s block policy based on the dishonest entrustment exclusion, where the insured, a high-end Manhattan jeweler, had been duped into “renting out” the pieces for a fictitious Jennifer Lopez video shoot in a wide-ranging scam orchestrated by a member of the Gambino crime family posing as a Sony Pictures representative. Successfully unmasked fraudulent insurance schemes across the country for domestic and international insurers, including arson-for-profit, bogus diamond and precious jewelry losses, and other scams involving real and insured personal property. Successfully tried, mediated or otherwise resolved scores of fine art and collectible disputes involving iconic works ranging from Old Masters and Picasso to Warhol and Basquiat. Honors and Distinctions Fordham University School of Law Editor in Chief, Moot Court Board Hobart College Magna cum laude Phi Beta Kappa Boswell and Crawford prizes for scholarship in the humanities Elected to membership in the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel (FDCC) Selected to the list of AV Preeminent Lawyers by Martindale-Hubbell. (A description of the selection methodology can be found at www.martindale.com/ratings-and-reviews/ . No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.) Professional Activities New York City Bar Association, Civil Trial Section, faculty member Defense Research Institute, First Party Insurance Committee, faculty member American Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Committees New York State Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Committees New Jersey State Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Committees Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, elected member Council on Litigation Management The National Arts Club The Armadillo Club Publications The Art of Insuring Art: Federal Bar Association Art & Litigation Conference. February 6, 2020 The Multi-Faceted Examination Under Oath: New York State Bar Association Coverage Update (with co-author Michael Gauvin). Spring, 2019 Art at Risk: John’s University Center for Executive Education. Dennis lectured on the legal aspects of Fine Art Claims. May 16, 2019 The Business of Art Observed: New York’s Roosevelt Hotel. Dennis lectured on insurance and risk management issues in today’s competitive art world. May 21, 2019 Money, Power, Beauty: The Value of Art: Federal Bar Association Art Law and Litigation Seminar, Miami, Florida, 2017 The Poison Pill? Settling Damage Claims Involving Living Artists (co-author Michael A. Bono): International Fine Art and Specie Conference. Rome, Italy, 2017 Recent Developments in First and Third Party Bad Faith Rulings (New York State Bar Association May 2017 Seminar: Updates and Hot Trending Topics Affecting Insurance Coverage) (co-author Michael Gauvin) CounterPoint: Pennsylvania Defense Institute: Assault on the Citadel of Privilege (with co-author Colleen E. Hayes). February 2017 9th Annual Art Litigation and Dispute Resolution Practice Institute: The Collision Between Art & Insurance Law—And A Word About VARA’s Impact on the Collision. November, 2016 International Fine Art and Specie Conference, Athens, Greece, 2016, Workshop: Guilt, Innocence and Coverage under JB policies (Co-presenter: Michael Bono). Some thoughts on the Art of Persuasion: Aristotle to Steve Jobs: 2016 (Georgetown University, Leadership Development Program). Insurance Issues in Art Law: (Fordham University School of Law). 2016 How Using A Professional Engineer Can Help You Win: (New York State Bar Association: 2016 Law School for Insurance Professionals—September 2016) (co-author with Daniel Beatty). Attorney Client Privilege Under Attack: (Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel: December 2015) (Co-Author Colleen Hayes) Deposition Boot Camp: Dennis recently served as faculty member at a program sponsored by the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel designed to hone the deposition skills of young lawyers. Dennis focused on the examination of plaintiffs and expert witnesses. November 2014. International Fine Arts and Specie Conference, Malta, 2014: Workshop: Getting It Back: The Challenges of Recovering Stolen Property – – United States v. European Union (Co-Presenter: Giando Boglione). Assault on the Citadel of Privilege: Bad Facts Make Really Bad Law (New York State Bar Association Seminar: 2014 Law School for Insurance Professionals) (Co-Author: Michael Gauvin). MARKET BRIEFING: Sandy’s Impact on Fine Art and Property Insurers – IUA Event: London – November 2013 (co-author with Michael Bono). Liability for Sporting and Recreational Activities: A Balancing Act (New York State Bar Association Seminar: Premises Liability – What You Need to Know in New York, March 2015) (co-author with Alison Weintraub). A Carnival for the Skeptic: Using Social Media In Claim And Defense Litigation – (The New York State Bar Association Seminar: 2013 Law School for Insurance Professionals – October 2013) (co-author with Michael Gauvin). UNCHARTED WATERS: Coverage Litigation After SuperStorm Sandy – (The New York State Bar Association Seminar: Advanced Insurance Coverage: Hot Topics, Touch Issues and a Look Ahead – May 2013 (co-author Steven M. Kaye, Jr). The Examination Before Trial – Honing your Deposition Skills in Tort and Personal Injury Cases (New York State Bar Association, May 2012, Program Chair). What Fine Art Insurers Really Need to Know About The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) (co-author with Michael A. Bono). The Anatomy of a Bust Out: The Implications of Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Fraud for Property, Fine Art and Specie Insurers (International Underwriting Association, London, England, November 2011 – co-author with Michael A. Bono). Liability for Sporting and Recreational Activities: A Balancing Act (New York State Bar Association Seminar: Premises Liability – What You Need to Know in New York, April 2011) (co-author with Alison Weintraub). Recent Landmark Insurance Decisions: A Guided Tour (New York State Bar Association Seminar: 2010 Law School for Insurance Professionals – More than the Basics, September 2010). Into the Serbonian Bog: A Consideration of Extra-Contractual Damages Under Bad Faith Theories in First Party Litigation (New York State Bar Association Seminar: 2010 Insurance Coverage Update: Insurance Coverage Issues in the Commercial General Liability Policy – Emerging Issues for the Next Decade, June 2010). Mediation for the Casualty Adjuster (Liability Insurance Research Bureau, San Antonio, TX March 2010). Defending Underwriters, Claim Professionals and Brokers in US Coverage Litigation (International Underwriting Association, London, England, November 2009) (co-author with Michael A. Bono). The Anatomy of a Premises Case (New York State Bar Association: Claims University, October 2009). Transferring Risk: The Interplay Between Contractual Indemnity Agreements and Additional Insured Coverage (New York State Bar Association Seminar: Additional Insured Coverage: Hot Topics & Critical Issues for 2009, May 2009). Getting it Back: Recovering Stolen Property in the United States (International Underwriting Association, October 2008) (co-author with Michael A. Bono). The Employee Exclusion in a Contractor’s CGL Policy and Related Limiting Endorsements (New York State Bar Association Spring Coverage Seminar, May 2008). Behind the Curtain: An Insider’s Guide to Mediation (Liability Insurance Research Bureau, Seattle, WA April 2008). Defending the Insurance Professional in Coverage and Bad Faith Litigation (International Underwriting Association, December 2006). The Intellectual Property Claim: A Strategic Approach To Analyzing Coverage And Defense Issues (Liability Insurance Research Bureau, April 2007). Into the Vortex – New Duty for Insurance Defense Counsel?, 237 N.Y.L.J. 61 (2007) (co-author with David F. Tavella). The World After ”Pecker”: A Case of Unintended Consequences, 236 N.Y.L.J. 36 (2006) (co-author with David F. Tavella). No-Prejudice Rule Lives (Apparently), 232 N.Y.L.J. 115 (2004) (co-author with David F. Tavella). The Emerging Doctrine of Contractual Contribution, 228 N.Y.L.J. 98 (2002) (co-author with David F. Tavella). Brokers and Agents are not “Professionals,” 226 N.Y.L.J. 52 (2001) (co-author with David F. Tavella). The Direct Examination of the Lay and Expert Witness, in A Guide to Civil Trials in New York State Supreme Court (Association of the Bar of the City of New York) (1999). The Many-Faceted Examination Under Oath, Defense Research Institute (Spring 1999). News I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D. Fordham University B.A. Hobart College, magna cum laude Bar Admissions Pennsylvania New York Court Admissions Southern District of New York Eastern District of New York Western District of New York Northern District of New York District of New Jersey Eastern District of Pennsylvania United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit United States Supreme Court

Latest News Button June 23, 2026 Read More New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures Button February 24, 2026 Read More Experienced Parter Scott A. Lazar Joins Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s New Jersey Office Experienced Parter Scott A. Lazar Joins Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP’s New Jersey Office Button January 20, 2026 Read More First Department Affirms Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market, Holding the “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment First Department Affirms Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market, Holding the “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment Button December 4, 2025 Read More New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases Button October 21, 2025 Read More First Department Reaffirms Litigants’ Right to Move Without Prior Judicial Approval First Department Reaffirms Litigants’ Right to Move Without Prior Judicial Approval Button July 25, 2025 Read More WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute WCM Selected as Law Firm of the Year by Pennsylvania Defense Institute Button February 8, 2025 Read More First Department Rules that Circumstances Do Matter in Evaluating AI Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases First Department Rules that Circumstances Do Matter in Evaluating AI Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases Button January 15, 2025 Read More DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia Button January 3, 2025 Read More Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Button October 10, 2024 Read More Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest Button October 8, 2024 Read More WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment Button September 27, 2024 Read More When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time Button September 27, 2024 Read More LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property Button September 27, 2024 Read More How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury Button September 27, 2024 Read More Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Button September 27, 2024 Read More Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Button September 23, 2024 Read More Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass Button September 20, 2024 Read More No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case Button September 20, 2024 Read More Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City Button September 20, 2024 Read More What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? Button September 20, 2024 Read More Balancing the Scales: The Role of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Pennsylvania Negligence Cases Balancing the Scales: The Role of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Pennsylvania Negligence Cases Button September 20, 2024 Read More The Fine Print Matters: Winning Contractual Indemnification Claims Between Tenants and Landlords The Fine Print Matters: Winning Contractual Indemnification Claims Between Tenants and Landlords Button September 13, 2024 Read More Coverage Limits, Continuing Causes, and COVID-19: District Court of New Jersey Holds COVID-19 Executive Orders Constitute One “Occurrence” Coverage Limits, Continuing Causes, and COVID-19: District Court of New Jersey Holds COVID-19 Executive Orders Constitute One “Occurrence” Button September 13, 2024 Read More It Wasn’t the Pig’s Fault It Wasn’t the Pig’s Fault Button September 6, 2024 Read More Notice of Claim Pitfall: New York Appellate Court Confirms That Original Deficiencies Cannot Be Corrected With §50-h Hearing Testimony Notice of Claim Pitfall: New York Appellate Court Confirms That Original Deficiencies Cannot Be Corrected With §50-h Hearing Testimony Load More

News New Jersey Court Grants Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Action Based on Untimely Expert Disclosures June 23, 2026 < Back Share to: Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Robert Cosgrove and Associate Anand Tayal secured a summary judgment victory on behalf of a care facility defendant in a New Jersey medical malpractice and wrongful death action. (The decision was issued in Relay v. RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc., No. MID-L-003060-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. June 11, 2026) (order granting summary judgment). The lawsuit arose from allegations of care facility malpractice, including claims of negligent management, understaffing, and inadequate care that allegedly caused the decedent’s injuries and death. Plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s operation and management of the facility fell below the accepted standard of care. A key issue before the court included whether the plaintiff could rely on untimely served expert reports that failed to comply with New Jersey’s procedural requirements. Due to medical malpractice cases generally requiring expert reports to establish the standard of care, a deviation from that standard, and causation, WCM argued that the plaintiff lacked the expert evidence needed to support the essential elements of the claims. Following oral argument presented by Tayal, the court granted summary judgment in favor of WCM’s client and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. The court declined to consider the late-served expert reports, due to noncompliance with applicable procedural rules in New Jersey. This decision reinforces the importance of expert testimony and procedural compliance in New Jersey medical malpractice litigation. For insurers and healthcare providers, careful evaluation of expert discovery issues and adherence to court-imposed deadlines can play a significant role in the successful defense of complex claims. Previous Next Robert J. Cosgrove Robert J. Cosgrove Executive Partner +1 267 239 5526 rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Pennsylvania Court Holds Auto Carriers Subject To Bad Faith Statute February 15, 2011 < Back Share to: < ![CDATA[Pennsylvania Court Holds Auto Carriers Subject To Bad Faith Statute]]> Previous Next Contact

News WCM Philadelphia Partner Becomes Treasurer of Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel June 30, 2021 < Back Share to: On June 21, 2021, WCM Partner Colleen E. Hayes was elected to the position of Treasurer of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, one of the oldest local defense organizations in the country. Colleen is a partner in WCM’s Philadelphia office and serves clients in commercial coverage related matters. Colleen was also recently selected as a Pennsylvania Rising Star for 2021. She also is on the DRI’s Young Lawyers Steering Committee. Previous Next Contact

News Claim Against NJSEA For Escalator Collapse At Giants Stadium Reinstated By NJ App. Div. February 17, 2011 < Back Share to: In DiBartolomeo v. New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority ( NJSEA), the Appellate Division reinstated a personal injury suit against the NJSEA for a 2006 escalator collapse at Giants Stadium after a New York Jets football game. Plaintiff claimed that as fans were exiting, the escalator buckled and the treads flattened causing patrons to slide down with bodies piling up at the bottom. The Appellate Division reversed summary judgment to the NJSEA finding that it was not entitled to immunity under the NJ Tort Claims Act. The court found that the stadium escalators could be found to pose a danger to the general public even when being used in a foreseeable manner. The potential dangerous condition was the NJSEA policy of operating the escalators that were rated for 300 lbs. per step, when it was foreseeable and likely that greater loads would be routinely applied. Please contact Robert Ball with any questions regarding this post. http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2716-09.pdf Previous Next Contact

News Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighing Bad Faith (PA) November 27, 2019 < Back Share to: Back in April, we noted all eyes were on the PA Supreme Court to further clarify the bad faith standard with respect to insurance coverage in the lawsuit captioned: Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. On Thursday, November 21, oral arguments were finally held in this matter. During arguments, the PA Supreme Court was asked to consider whether the PA Superior Court abused its discretion by reweighing evidence relied upon by the trial court in its finding of bad faith on the part of an insurance carrier. By way of background, this lawsuit stems from a 1996 car accident involving Sharon Berg which led to well over a decade of litigation between Berg and her automobile insurer. The insurance company chose to send the vehicle for repairs rather than deem it totaled. Berg sued her insurer on the premise that the repairs were defective and the car was no longer crashworthy. One of the hotly contested issues became whether the insurer had, in bad faith, decided to repair the vehicle because it was half the cost of rendering it totaled, although the car was in fact totaled. A Berk’s County jury found almost entirely in favor of the insurer and only found it should pay $295 for violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. However, the trial judge found bad faith on the part of the insurer and added $18M in punitive damages and $3M in counsel fees to Berg’s verdict. Specifically, the trial judge cited to the insurer’s later decision to deem the car totaled, its failures to disclose information about the vehicle’s condition, abusing the discovery process, and its failure to negotiate in good faith. On appeal, the Superior Court found the evidence relied upon by the trial judge to be unconvincing and reversed the trial court’s verdict. Specifically, it found that there was no evidence that the insurer knew the vehicle was not safe to be put back on the road nor that it acted in bad faith, stating, “The trial court simply ignored a large body of evidence that rendered is finding unsupported.” In addition, the appellate court found bias on the part of the trial judge because of language in the judge’s opinion that appeared to condemn the insurance industry in broad terms. On Thursday, the PA Supreme heard oral arguments after granting Berg’s appeal. It will issue its decision on, among other things, whether the appellate court abused its discretion “by reweighing and disregarding clear and convincing evidence introduced in the trial court upon which the trial court relied to enter a finding of insurance bad faith.” Continue to stay tuned for the PA Supreme Court’s ruling and its impact on PA bad faith litigation. Thank you to Priscilla Torres for her contribution to this post. Please email Colleen E. Hayes with any questions. Previous Next Contact

Job Listings Job Type Select Job Type Workspace Select Workspace Search Jobs Number of jobs found: 2 Associate Attorney West Palm Beach, FL, USA View Job Associate Attorney Springfield, NJ, USA View Job

News Mediation Agreements Are Binding in NJ. August 12, 2011 < Back Share to: In the case of Willingboro Mall v. 240/242 Franklin Avenue, et al., the plaintiff appealed from an order enforcing a settlement reached during a mediation session conducted pursuant to Rule 1:40-4. Plaintiff argued that the rule precludes enforcement of an oral settlement reached at a nonbinding mediation session. It also contended the alleged settlement was the product of coercion by the mediator. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows. Plaintiff and defendants were commercial real estate entities who were involved in a default and foreclosure dispute. The parties were referred to mediation by the General Equity judge. The parties selected a retired Superior Court Judge as mediator, and attended a mediation session with their attorneys at the office of defendants' attorney. After several hours, the parties agreed to a settlement. Counsel for defendants then wrote a letter to the General Equity judge to inform him that the parties had reached a settlement. The letter also stated the terms of the settlement. Plaintiff refused to consummate the settlement and instead asserted that a final, binding settlement agreement had not been reached at the mediation session. Defendants then filed a motion to enforce the mediated settlement agreement, and supported the motion with a certification of their attorney and the mediator. A plenary hearing was conducted and a written opinion was issued, which found that the parties did in fact arrive at a settlement of the underlying case, and that the settlement was therefore binding. On appeal, plaintiff argued that Rule 1:40-4(i) prevented enforcement of an oral settlement because the terms of the settlement were not reduced to writing at the mediation session, a copy of the writing was not provided to each party, and the parties did not affix their signatures to the writing at the mediation session. In addition, plaintiff argued that enforcement of a settlement reached at a mediation session is contrary to the non-binding nature of the mediation process. The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court. It ruled that mediation is utilized to afford the parties an opportunity to present their position before an experienced professional with the goal of resolving some or all of the differences between the parties. Rule 1:40-4 (i) does not prohibit the mediator or one of the parties from reducing the terms of the agreement to writing shortly after conclusion of the mediation session as occurred in this case. Specifically, the court noted that in this case, three days after the mediation session, defendants' attorney prepared and sent a letter stating the terms of the agreement reached by the parties. Two weeks later, he sent another letter informing plaintiff that he had placed the sum required to resolve the dispute in an escrow account. The Appellate Court held that these writings, the first memorializing the terms of the settlement and the second notifying plaintiff of defendants' action to consummate the settlement, were within the intention of the rule requiring the agreement to be reduced to writing. Two important points bear mention here. First, sometimes attorneys (and litigants) are held to their word and bound by their verbal actions. Second, and perhaps more importantly, know your case and the attorneys. If the attorneys on the other side seem like the kind of folks who will try to weasel their way out of an agreement, don’t leave the mediation until a written agreement is finalized and signed by all parties. It might take a little bit longer, but it’s certainly worth the effort – in fact, we just did this on a case on Wednesday where a post mediation “agreement on written terms” seemed like it might be hard to come by. But that’s a story for a different day… Special thanks to Sheila Osei for her contributions to this post. For more information about it, or WCM's NJ practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News "Wet Floor" Signs and Mats May Not Be Proof of Notice December 3, 2021 < Back Share to: In Snauffer v. 1177 Ave of the Americas LP, Plaintiff suffered personal injuries after slipping and falling on a wet floor in his office building. Defendant moved for and was granted summary judgment after claiming it had no actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that it was a rainy day, and that defendants had mats out and signs up in other portions of the building thus proving defendants had notice of the conditions. The First Department agreed with the trial court, finding that the signs and mats were out as a safety precaution and not in response to complaints about a dangerous condition where plaintiff fell. Moreover, the First Department discounted the affidavits of plaintiff’s co-worker and expert on the grounds that neither had stated the date which their observations were made. As such, the First Department affirmed unanimously. Thanks to Alison Weintraub for her contribution to this post. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08773.htm Previous Next Contact

News Failure to Prevent Bullying = Liability for Discrimination? September 29, 2011 < Back Share to: Last week New Jersey legislators passed an "Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights." The bill revised the 2002 New Jersey law on harassment, intimidation, and bullying in public schools. According to one legislator, the Bill "makes it clear that preventing and responding to incidents of harassment, intimidation and bullying are not optional." Rather the Bill sets forth specific protocols for investigating, reporting and training necessary to deal with bullying. The question for schools and courts to consider going forward is whether implementation of the protocols and/or the failure to do so, will render the schools liable in discrimination suits commenced by/on behalf of the bullied students. Thanks to Cheryl Fuchs for her contribution to this post. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_legislature_sends_anti-bull.html http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/A3500/3466_S1.PDF Previous Next Contact