London Our Offices New York Pennsylvania New Jersey Florida Louisiana Texas Long Island London Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP – London WCM opened its London Office in October 2020 by WCM London Market Representative Jeff Weston. WCM’s London office focuses on serving and developing WCM’s client base in the London market and at Lloyd’s of London. Contact Details 100 Bishopsgate, London EC2N 4AG, UK +44 208 159 2544 N/A Attorneys and Professional Staff Mark Turner Market Representative

E. Alexis Bevis Partner Louisiana abevis@wcmlaw.com +1 504 291-2360 Professional Experience Alexis regularly handles cases in state and federal courts in Louisiana. Alexis’ primary areas of practice are defense of general casualty lines carriers focusing on casualty, commercial, and complex litigation in the fields of energy, manufacturing, highway engineering, transportation, construction negligence, premises liability, products liability, medical malpractice, cyber litigation, catastrophic loss, and coverage opinions. A snapshot of cases she has defended: • Successful defense of several premises liability claims regarding alleged parking lot and/or ingress and egress defects, as well as alleged defects within grocery stores and apartment complexes. • Successful defense of multiple cases involving alleged negligence by employees of family-owned tow truck companies on all types of Louisiana roadways. • Successful defense of alleged apartment complex negligence in the shooting deaths of two alleged visitors. • Successful defense of pile-driving activities that allegedly caused defects to adjacent property. • Successful defense of in excess of one-hundred-million-dollar exposure subrogation action against insurer of dissolved inspection company alleged to have been responsible for petroleum refinery fire and explosion. • Successful defense of child placement service for wrongful death of infant. • Successful defense of multi-million dollar exposure claim against engineering consultant alleged to have been responsible for the misperforation and failed recompletion of an oil well. • Successful defense of various State of Louisiana correctional facilities against claims of negligent bodily injury. • Successful defense of family services entity for molestation claims of two minors. • Successful defense of facility for the developmentally disabled for alleged rape claim of a developmentally disabled consumer by another developmentally disabled consumer. • Successful summary judgment upholding statutory employer defense on behalf of owner of multi-million dollar revitalization project. Professional Activities Louisiana State Bar Association New Orleans Bar Association News I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D., Loyola University College of Law B.A., The Pennsylvania State University Bar Admissions Louisiana Court Admissions U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida

News Reversal Where Evidence Did Not Support The Aggravation Of Pre Existing Injury Jury Charge. February 20, 2009 < Back Share to: Sheffer v. Sullivan was a NJ verbal tort threshold case tried on the issue of damages only. The primary issue was whether plaintiff's alleged back injury was a disc bulge or herniation and whether the injury was permanent. Testimony from various doctors confirmed that the plaintiff had a preexisting arthritic condition in her spine which was asymptomatic, however, no expert testified that the preexisting condition was aggravated by the accident. Over the objection of the defense attorney the Court gave the jury the aggravation charge and the jury awarded $175,000. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial finding that by submitting the aggravation charge to the jury, the trial court allowed the jury to award damages for an aggravation of a preexisting condition, despite the absence of sufficient evidence to support the claim. Since the verbal tort threshold required proof of a permanent back injury, the Court's mistake in allowing the jury to consider aggravation evidence was " capable of producing an unjust result, and constituted reversible error." http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a6601-06.pdf Previous Next Contact

News PA Appellate Court Finds that You’re “At Work” While on Your Commute April 8, 2022 < Back Share to: In Bark v. Sooner Steel LLC, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a worker was acting within the course and scope of his employment while commuting home from work. The court emphasized that whether someone is acting within the course and scope of his or her employment is a fact specific inquiry. In Bark, the claimant suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred while he was returning home from work. Before the accident, the claimant, Mr. Bark, and his employer had agreed that he would be paid for the time he worked, as well as the commute. There was, however, no written contract. After the incident, Mr. Bark sought workers’ compensation benefits. The workers’ compensation board denied the claim, finding that the claimant was not acting within the scope of his employment when the incident occurred. Under Pennsylvania law, commuting to and from work is not considered to be within the course and scope of one’s employment (commonly referred to as the “coming and going” rule). There are limited exceptions though. The exceptions are: (1) the employment contract includes transportation to and/or from work; (2) the claimant has no fixed place of work; (3) the claimant is on a “special assignment or mission” for the employer; or (4) special circumstances are such that the claimant was furthering the business of the employer. Each case is extremely fact intensive. Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court (an appellate tribunal), found that Mr. Bark was acting within the course and scope of his employment when the incident occurred. The court relied on the “humanitarian nature” of the Act. Further, it found that “course of employment” should be broadly construed when the employee is a traveling employee—as Mr. Bark was. Similarly, “course of employment” is broadly construed when there is no fixed place of work. Ultimately, the court determined that Mr. Bark suffered his injuries when while in the “course and scope” of his employment. Thanks to John Lang for his contribution to this article. Should you wish to discuss, please feel free to contact Tom Bracken. Previous Next Contact

News NY Upholds Dismissal of Claim by Passenger in Stolen Car May 15, 2012 < Back Share to: In Kalafatis v. Royal Waste Management, the plaintiff was a passenger in a stolen vehicle that ran a red light and collided with the co-defendant’s truck. The co-defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. The plaintiff appealed and moved to re-argue. The lower court granted the plaintiff’s motion to reargue and, accordingly, the plaintiff never perfected his appeal. The plaintiff’s motion to reargue was heard and the court upheld its prior decision. Once again, the plaintiff appealed. The Second Department stated that, as a general rule, it does not consider issues on a subsequent appeal that could have been or were raised in an earlier appeal. Nevertheless, the Court used its inherent jurisdiction and discretion and agreed to hear this appeal. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the lower court’s prior decision was, once again, upheld. Thanks to Georgia Stagias for this post. For more information, contact Denise Ricci at dricci@wcmlaw.com   Previous Next Contact

News How Not to Handle a Product Recall: J&J Shows the Way. June 11, 2010 < Back Share to: J&J's handling of the Tylenol recall in the 1980s is lauded as "the" model of how a company should handle a recall; indeed, even the US Department of Defense studies it -- http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02C2/Johnson%20&%20Johnson.htm! (Coincidentally, it was also the genesis of the effective commercialization of product recall insurance). However, it appears that J&J has forgotten its prior success and instead is seeking to write a new model of how not to handle a recall. As we reported, earlier this year, J&J subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare ran into a problem with some of its Tylenol products -- http://www.wcmlaw.com/blog/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=486. In May, that same subsidiary was forced to institute a recall of 40 over-the-counter pain, fever, and allergy medications for infants and children, including certain forms of Tylenol, Motrin, Benadryl, and Zyrtec. As you can imagine, the FDA and Congress has been actively (and publicly) investigating these recalls. Rather, than cooperate with the investigations, it appears that J&J is stalling and refusing to provide requested information -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/health/11drug.html?ref=business. The relevant investigative agencies are now considering a more aggressive approach and a criminal inquiry has been opened. J&J seems unaware of the old axiom that the cover-up is always worse than the crime, except, of course, when it's not. If you would like to know more about this post, or WCM's product recall practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Basketball Player Assumes The Risk Of Injury In Electronic Waiver October 22, 2008 < Back Share to: We've come a long way since the Declaration of Independence was signed on engrossed parchment in 1776. Banks, computer software manufacturers, and online merchants, just to name a few, require us to affirm our consent to their terms and conditions through our "clicks" on their websites. Has the law caught up with this new technology? In Stephenson v. Lawyers Athletic League, a 6'8" former Division I college basketball player was assaulted by another player. There was trash talking during the game that culminated in plaintiff getting punched in the face while waiting to take a foul shot, sustaining a fractured jaw. Plaintiff sued the Lawyers Athletic League, the league organizer, and The Food Bank, which sponsored the team on which the assaulter played. The two key issues were whether the plaintiff expressly assumed the risk of injury and waived any claims of negligence against the League and whether his online signature of the waiver/release was valid under New York law. The motion court held that the language of the online waiver included claims relating to the negligence of the League as well as the "actions, inactions or negligence of others..." Therefore, the court ruled that by voluntarily participating in the game and executing the waiver/release, plaintiff assumed the risk of injury including an assault by a fellow participant. An interesting sub issue was whether plaintiff could signify his consent by hitting the "submit" button on the the electronic waiver form. Citing New York's State Technology Law, the court found plaintiff's action to be the functional equivalent of an electronic signature and enforced the terms of the form. Victory to the League and that's no trash talk. http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/FCAS_docs/2008OCT/3001128702006002SCIV.pdf Previous Next Contact

News Call Your Next Witness - Matthew McCann April 26, 2023 < Back Share to: On this episode of the Call Your Next Witness podcast, we welcome fellow attorney, Queens Native and Regis High School alum Matthew McCann. Matt’s practice areas have varied greatly over the years, spanning white collar criminal defense, securities litigation, land use, cannabis, Special Education, and appellate practice, now at Moss & Colella, P.C. in Southfield, Michigan. Matt’s career and practice areas have evolved and grown in ways he never would have predicted as a younger attorney. And of course, we spent some time discussing Matt’s other “practice area” -- Battle Rap –both in NYC and Detroit. Listen here: https://lnkd.in/e8NbgmSd This may be the first ever lawyer-centric battle rap #podcast ever recorded. #wcmlaw For more information about the podcast, email Brian Gibbons. Previous Next Contact

News Fantasia's Fall on the Ice February 19, 2010 < Back Share to: Fantasia Massey went to Newburgh, NY to visit her friend Michael Valerie on Sunday, March 11. The visit went well and Fantasia remained inside Mike's apartment without once venturing outside until 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 14, when she felt the need to visit a local convenience store. Mike drove Fantasia to the store. He parked his car on the street in front of the store. Fantasia got out of the car and, she says, slipped and fell on ice on the sidewalk in front of the store. She fractured her ankle. She filed suit against the owner of the convenience store. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_30238.pdf The defendant moved for summary judgment, supporting its motion with an expert affidavit and data that showed that the temperature at the time of the accident was 57 degrees and that it had been as high as 73 degrees earlier that day. The expert who interpreted this arcane data opined that there could not have been any ice on the sidewalk during Fantasia's ill-fated trip outside the apartment. The plaintiff countered with her own affidavit, swearing that there was, indeed, ice on the sidewalk. Mike swore to the same. They produced photographs of ice on the sidewalk that they said they took two hours after the fall. The court in New York County denied the defendant's motion, finding a question of fact about the existence of ice. Posted by Maju Varghese. Previous Next Contact

News Hold on tight- No Duty to Defend for Unloading on Truck May 3, 2024 < Back Share to: The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recently put to rest an issue of the applicability of a Policy’s auto exclusion to an insurer’s duty to defend in the case Rock Grp. NY Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London , No. 2023-03145, 2024 WL 1625154 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 16, 2024). In the underlying case, a subcontractor was injured when unloading an iron beam from a flatbed truck. Specifically, the injured worker testified he was “on the truck”, assisting with moving the beams when a slip from a fellow worker caused him to get pinned between the beam and the bed of the truck, resulting in neck injuries. Lloyds subsequently denied coverage to the general contractor via the auto exclusion, which excludes coverage for “Bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ arising out of” the use of an auto, including loading and unloading. Lloyds insisted that since the subcontractor was on the truck at the time of accident, the exclusion applied. Rock Group offered the counterargument that the exclusion could only apply to exclude coverage where the operation of the vehicle is a cause of the accident, which was not the case here. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division sided with Lloyds. Citing to a previous case Transel El. & Electric, Inc. v First Specialty Ins. Co. , 214 AD3d 547, the court saw the policy exclusion as unambiguous, in that as the injured worker “ was unloading material from a truck's shipping trailer or liftgate,” it constituted “an activity clearly encompassed by the auto exclusion”. Here, the case is the same- the policy clearly delimitated what is and is not covered by the policy, and nothing in the auto exclusion required the explicit “operation” of a vehicle in order to trigger. On that basis, Lloyds had no duty to defend Rock Group, and granted their motion for summary judgement. Rock Group NY Corp v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London .pdf Download PDF • 125KB Previous Next Contact

News Starbucks Tea Trumps McDonald's Coffee November 3, 2010 < Back Share to: Rachel Moltner, age 76, stopped in at a Starbucks on the upper east side of Manhattan one winter's day in 2008 for a hot beverage. Her barista poured her a venti-sized, 190-degrees Fahrenheit cup of tea, double-cupped it, and put on a lid. Ms. Moltner went to a table and was wrestling the lid off in order to add sugar, when she spilled the tea onto her leg and foot. From there, things really went downhill. Ms. Moltner required a skin graft to repair the burns to her leg and, during her stay in the hospital, she developed bed sores and then fell out of bed, fracturing her sacrum and herniating a disc or two. With visions of Stella Liebeck's 1992 hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's no doubt in mind, Ms. Moltner sued Starbucks. She filed suit in state court in New York but Starbucks removed the case to federal court. The federal judge who reviewed the case dismissed it, saying that "no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the tea's 190 F temperature took plaintiff by surprise." http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1543460.html Previous Next Contact

News New York's Highest Court Finds Owners and Contractors Strictly Liable for Damage to Adjoining Buildings March 2, 2012 < Back Share to: The Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in Yemen Corp. v. 281 Broadway Holdings addressing the Administrative Code of the City of New York section 27-1031(b). Importantly, the Court determined that the statute imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors whose excavation work causes damage to an adjoining property. Yemen is a property damage case that involved allegations that the defendant’s excavation (18 feet below curb level) shifted the plaintiff’s building out of plumb due to undermining of the existing footings and a loss of soil. Administrative Code 27-1031(b) provides: When an excavation is carried to a depth of more than ten feet below the legally established curb level the person who causes such excavation to be made shall, at all times and at his or her own expense, preserve and protect from injury any adjoining structures, the safety of which may be affected by such part of the excavation as exceeds ten feet below the legally established curb level provided such person is afforded a license to enter and inspect the adjoining buildings and property. In effect, this statute finds the duty to protect adjacent buildings during excavation to be absolute and unqualified. Accordingly, in New York City, those who undertake excavation work rather than those whose interests and neighboring land is harmed by it should bear the cost if damage occurs. The fact that a building may be in poor condition will not raise an issue of fact as to causation under the statute, although it is still relevant with respect to the measure of damages. Thanks to Bill Kirrane for his contribution to this post. For more information about this post, please contact Nicole Brown at nbrown@wcmlaw.com . http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/Feb12/1opn12.pdf Previous Next Contact