Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News Spiderman, Spiderman -- Does Whatever a Lawyer Can? February 14, 2011 < Back Share to: The artistic and technical problems of the new Spiderman musical are well-chronicled -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/spider-man-reviews_n_820640.html. And, it is certainly a good thing that NY's Labor Law does not apply to actors' falls from heights -- http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=12446206. But, since the odds of some kind of lawsuit ultimately arising are, at least, decent, Saturday Night Live has decided to have some fun -- http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/spider-man-lawsuit/1291746/. If only, there wasn't some truth to the absence of professional standards. For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News WCM Partner Speaks to Academy of Experts in London. March 23, 2018 < Back Share to: On March 14, 2018, WCM Partner Bob Cosgrove spoke to The Academy of Experts at Gray’s Inn, Inns of Court, London, UK. His presentation was entitled “I’m a Bit of an Expert: The Use of Experts in US Litigation.” The seminar explained the differences between US and UK approaches on experts and how that impacts the ultimate outcomes of litigation. For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove. Previous Next Contact

News Reality or Wishful Thinking: Is the Admitted Market About to Get Hammered? February 15, 2011 < Back Share to: The softness of the current insurance market has impacted everyone. One specific way in which it has impacted the E&S market is that admitted carriers (to increase premium intake) have underwritten risks that usually reverted to the E&S market. Some professionals believe that the worm is about to turn as the admitted carriers flee the newly written risks because of bad loss ratios -- http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/02/10/184165.htm. The question is -- when? And to that question, no-one knows the answer. For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Criminal Penalties for "Tweeting" Jurors August 12, 2011 < Back Share to: We have reported on several occasions about how social media has been slowly changing the legal landscape, particularly in terms of instructions to be given to jurors during trial proceedings. While judges must always instruct jurors not to communicate with anyone about the pending proceedings, jurors have continuously failed to comprehend that the judge's instructions also apply to Facebook and twitter. California has decided to be proactive about such juror actions, and is amending its jury instruction to include a prohibition against "any form of electronic or wireless communication." Violators potentially face six months in jail. New York was a bit ahead of the game on this issue as it revised its jury instructions in May 2009. A "tweeting juror" in NY can be charged with criminal contempt, and very nearly was in the case of People v. Rios, 2010 WL 625221 (N.Y. Sup., 2010) during a well publicized arson trial in Bronx County. Thanks to Biran Gibbons for his contribution to this post. 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

Latest News 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 Button September 6, 2024 Read More Recent New York Decision Highlight the Importance of Documenting Condition of Property During Utility Work Recent New York Decision Highlight the Importance of Documenting Condition of Property During Utility Work Load More

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

News Erupting Toilets In Mall Found To Be The Act of God February 15, 2011 < Back Share to: In Abarca v. Clark Shoes, et al., the plaintiff was the manager of a Coach store, located in the Queens Center Mall. In July of 2007, a large storm hit Queens, causing severe flooding within many of the mall's stores. The toilet in the Clark Shoes store, located above the Coach store, erupted, causing severe flooding that leaked down into the Coach store. The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping on this puddle. The lower court dismissed the claims against the owner of the mall. The Second Department affirmed that decision, finding that the storm was an act of God and that the resulting damage was unforeseeable. Thanks to Georgia G. Stagias for her contribution to this post. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00992.htm Previous Next Contact

Practice Areas Appellate Casualty Defense Commercial Auto & Trucking Commercial Litigation Construction Litigation Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Dram Shop Education and Not for Profit Law Employment Law Fine Art and Specie First Party Property Fraud Investigation and Prosecution Insurance Coverage Premises Liability Products Liability Professional Liability Retail & Hospitality Sports and Recreational Liability Subrogation and Recovery