Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News WCM Welcomes Three New Partners September 1, 2023 < Back Share to: WCM is pleased to announce that effective September 1, 2023, Carol Kotsinis, Carl Schaerf, and Gary Smith, formerly of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP, have joined WCM as Partners. Carol has two decades of experience litigating and advising clients on a variety of product liability, general liability, municipal law, motor vehicle, construction defect, premises liability, toxic torts, and commercial matters. She handles matters through trial in both state and federal courts in New York and New Jersey and has extensive mediation and arbitration experience. Carl has focused his legal career on products liability, general liability, commercial litigation, and defense of allegations of professional malpractice in New York and New Jersey. He has extensive litigation experience at both the trial and the appellate levels, including several prominent verdicts and published appellate decisions. He also has litigated numerous environmental disputes in state and federal court. Gary is a civil litigator who handles all aspects of civil and commercial litigation in state and federal courts throughout New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. His broad civil litigation experience includes prosecuting and defending appeals, claims for breach of contract, insurance matters, employment disputes, claims for disability discrimination, negligence and mass tort claims. Gary has developed significant credentials in the defense of general liability and casualty, as well as asbestos claims. WCM looks forward to continuing to grow our practice, in partnership with Carol, Carl and Gary. Previous Next Contact

James W. Scott Jr. Partner Pennsylvania jscott@wcmlaw.com +1 267 239 5526 Professional Experience At WCM, Jim focuses his practice on construction defect cases, where he defends general contractors, framing contractors, masonry contractors, roofing contractors, siding contractors, mechanical contractors, architects, and engineers throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey; defends a wide variety of personal injury claims asserted against developers, property management companies, snow removal contractors, landscape contractors, charitable organizations, religious organizations, charter schools, day care facilities, small businesses, and individuals; defends product manufacturers and distributors in product liability claims involving motor vehicles and trucks, construction equipment, automotive parts, and petroleum equipment; and defends warranty companies and vehicle service contractors in breach of warranty claims. Jim has more than three decades of insurance defense experience for firms in Philadelphia and Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Prior to becoming an attorney, Jim was the Assistant Director of Operations for the largest fabricator/erector of structural steel in the Delaware Valley. Consequently, his construction defect practice has been significantly enhanced by substantial real-world experience. Honors and Distinctions Fellow, Academy of Advocacy At Temple University, Jim was in the Moot Court Honor Society and was a Semi-Finalist in the Samuel J. Polsky Moot Court Competition. He was awarded the honor of Distinguished Class Performance in 10 separate subjects: Lawyering Process, Contracts II, Labor Law, Criminal Law I, Introduction to Trial Advocacy, Professional Responsibility, Evidence, Environmental Law, Business Associations, and Administrative Law. Professional Activities Jim is an active member of several professional associations, including the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, and the Defense Research Institute. He served as President of PADC from 2014-2015 and President of PDI from 2021-2022. As such, he is the only attorney ever elected President of both defense organizations. Jim serves as an arbitrator in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. From 2004-2013, Jim coached the Mock Trial Team at Samuel S. Fels High School in Philadelphia. Publications Jim co-authored the chapter on Pennsylvania construction law for the DRI Defense Library Series publication, Construction Litigation Desk Reference. He has been a frequent contributor to PDI’s Counterpoint and is the former co-author of its “Product Liability Update.” News I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D., Temple University School of Law B.A., Duke University Bar Admissions Pennsylvania New Jersey Court Admissions Eastern District of Pennsylvania District of New Jersey United States Supreme Court

News Fireworks Accident Only One Occurrence (PA) March 31, 2017 < Back Share to: In Hollis v. Lexington Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania federal court was faced with determining how many "occurrences" were triggered under an insurance policy, which can dramatically impact the amount of available coverage. Plaintiff Kathleen Hollis and her two children were injured during a fireworks show when a mortar unexpectedly was launched into the crowd. Plaintiffs alleged that the fireworks company, its president, and another employee committed 19 breaches of duty resulting in the injuries. Those breaches included negligently selecting and purchasing the fireworks, violating laws and regulations in the import of the fireworks, failing to test the fireworks before deployment, disregarding indications that the location for the fireworks show was unsafe, failing to set the crowd back at a safe distance from the launch area, negligently training employees, and other similar allegations. In the declaratory judgment action against Lexington Insurance Company, the Court was tasked with determining whether the allegations constituted a single occurrence, or as the claimants alleged, 19 separate occurrences under the fireworks company’s insurance policy to correspond with the number of duties that fireworks company allegedly breached. The insurance policy had a $1 million limit per occurrence and a $2 million aggregate limit. The insurer moved for summary judgment, saying that there was a single occurrence, and the injured claimants cross-moved. The trial court found in favor of the insurer, and the claimants appealed. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit found that Pennsylvania law applies a cause approach to defining what constitutes an “occurrence.” Under the cause approach, there is a single occurrence if there was one proximate, uninterrupted, and continuing cause which resulted in all of the injuries and damage. The Fourth Circuit noted that, regardless of the number of alleged negligent acts or victims, all the injuries had a single proximate cause — the misfired firework. Since all the injuries only had one cause, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and held that only one occurrence took place. Thanks to Jorgelina Foglietta for her contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono for more information. Previous Next Contact

News SDNY denies Lloyd's motion for summary judgment because key JB term was undefined. October 11, 2007 < Back Share to: In the case of Alex & Alex Diamonds, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Lloyd's attempted to disclaim coverage because the JB policy did not provide coverage for commission salesmen. Alex & Alex argued that the man from whom the $160,00 worth of jewelery was stolen was not a commission salesman, but rather an employee. Trial court held that because policy did not define term "commission salesman", it could not determine as a matter of law whether individual was (or was not) a commission salesman. http://web2.westlaw.com/welcome/NewYork/default.wl?fn=_top&rs=WLW7.09&mt=NewYork&vr=2.0&sv=Full Previous Next Contact

News Watch Your Feet: Plaintiff Assumed Risk When Kicked In Head By Fellow Dancer (NY) January 29, 2021 < Back Share to: In Spruck v. Pollack and Academy of Dance Arts, plaintiff was allegedly injured while participating in a dance program run by defendants. During a rehearsal for a dance recital, plaintiff was participating in a choreographed dance when another dancer was spinning with her leg in the air and the other dancer's foot came into contact with plaintiff’s head. Plaintiff continued with the rehearsal after the incident. Defendants [Dance instructor and school] moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the doctrine of assumption of the risk is applicable. Defendants argued that Plaintiff assumed the risk and that getting struck by other dancers during a choreographed dance is part of dancing. The lower Court granted Defendants’ motions and plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division, First Department upheld the lower Court decision that Defendants' demonstrated that plaintiff voluntarily engaged in the activity of dancing and as an experienced dancer knew the risks inherent in the activity. Plaintiff had been enrolled in defendants' dance academy for three years and participated in five to six dance competitions each year. The video of the accident submitted by Defendants further demonstrated Plaintiffs experience as a dancer. Moreover, the video of the accident established that the dance moves at the time the accident occurred did not create a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in dancing. Plaintiff's argument, that no one specifically informed her that getting kicked in the head was one of the risks, was found to be an unavailing argument, as it is not necessary that she foresee the exact manner for which the injury might occur, so long as there is a general awareness for potential of injury due to engagement in the activity. Thanks to Paul Vitale for his contribution to this post. Please email Georgia Coats with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Participation is Not Always Direction or Control under NY's Labor Law February 10, 2009 < Back Share to: Owners of one and two-family homes are typically exempt from Labor Law §240 and 241, except in situations where they “direct or control” the work. In Snyder v. Gnall, the Third Department in New York recently held that despite clear involvement by the owner in the construction project, his actions did not rise to the level of direction or control. The owner was identified on the building permit as the general contractor; he personally arranged for building inspections; he hired all contractors and sub-contractors; and he ordered and paid for certain building materials. However, because all of these activities took place pursuant to directions or recommendations set forth in plaintiff’s comprehensive proposal, the Court held the owner’s participation was not as significant to support the conclusion that he directed or controlled the work. The claims were thus dismissed. Snyder v. Gnall Previous Next Contact

News Can An Expert Conclude that Excessive Floor Cleaning Create a Dangerous Condition? (NJ) October 31, 2016 < Back Share to: In Elaine Anderocci v. Coach Inc., the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of New Jersey discussed whether plaintiff’s expert report was admissible to show defendant’s floor cleaning practices created a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was reaching for a handbag on a shelf in a Coach store when she slipped and fell fracturing her shoulder. Plaintiff argued that “[t]he very slippery floor was like a sheet of glass.” Plaintiff obtained a report from a wood flooring expert who described the wood flooring as "quartersawn walnut planks" installed in a herringbone pattern and milled with stress relief. Although the expert never examined the store’s floor, he concluded that the slippery condition of the floor was attributable to the use of excessive water in cleaning it. The expert based his conclusions on the record, which indicated it was Coach, Inc.’s practice to have the floor “damp mopped” three times per week. According to the plaintiff’s expert, if too much water is used to mop this type of flooring, the water can cause the surface to cup or crown—thereby creating a slippery and dangerous condition. The plaintiff’s expert cited to the National Wood Flooring Association (“NWFA”) maintenance guidelines, which state that floor crowning can be caused by “moisture imbalance” due to excessive water used when cleaning a wood floor. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant concluding that the plaintiff’s expert report comprised an inadmissible net opinion. He did not inspect the flooring, and accepted plaintiff’s deposition testimony at face value. There was no evidence in the record that defendant’s floor was “cupped” or “crowned.” Notably, the expert report did not establish why Coach, Inc.’s practice of damp-mopping the floor three times per week was too frequent, or conversely, too infrequent. Accordingly, the conclusions were too speculative to be admissible and were not sufficiently grounded upon facts in the record. Defense counsel should be cognizant that just because an expert is well versed in a specific area, if there is no objective evidence tying the conclusion to the specific facts of the case, it may be rejected by the court as an inadmissible net opinion. Thanks to Ken Eng for his contribution to this post.       Previous Next Contact

News 9/11 $575,000,000 Settlement Rejected by Court. March 20, 2010 < Back Share to: In a stunning development, Judge Alvin Hellerstein has rejected the $575,000,000 settlement reached by the parties. Judge Hellerstein ruled that the settlement was "not enough." It's back to the drawing board in MC 100. http://www.1010wins.com/-This-Settlement-Is-Not-Enough-/6615869 Previous Next Contact

News Taxi Responsible for Fatal Hit of Passenger After Drop Off (NY) September 21, 2016 < Back Share to: Recently, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that a taxi driver may owe a duty to its passenger once the passenger has exited the vehicle. In O'Connor v. Ronnie Cab Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05980, plaintiff exited a taxi and walked around the car to cross the street. As plaintiff as doing so, he was struck by another vehicle coming down the street and killed. The Court found that there were questions of fact as to whether the taxi driver’s positioning of the car when dropping plaintiff off obstructed plaintiff’s view of oncoming traffic causing plaintiff’s incident. At the time of the accident, the taxi was far from the curb and was partially inside of an active travel lane. The Court determined that the duty of a common carrier to safely discharge a passenger may have ended when plaintiff exited the vehicle, but the driver’s duty to plaintiff as a pedestrian just began and that it was the violation of that duty that may be the proximate cause of plaintiff’s death. This decision exemplifies one of the few circumstances where an active driver in a pedestrian knock down case may not be liable for plaintiff’s injuries and instead, the car blocking plaintiff’s view of oncoming traffic may be to blame. Thanks to Dana Purcaro for her contribution to this post. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions. Previous Next Contact

Philip A. Wines Law Clerk New York pwines@wcmlaw.com 332 251 0739 Publications Philip Andrew B. Wines, A Proxy for Piety: A Closer Look at Religious Cost in the Substantial Burden Inquiry , 93 Fordham L. Rev. 29 (2024). News I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D., Fordham University School of Law B.A., Fordham University

News Insurance Broker’s Fiduciary Duty a “Fact-Specific” Question of Law for the Court October 3, 2017 < Back Share to: One particularly thorny area of the law with respect to insurance providers and brokers is the scope and breadth of any attendant fiduciary duties owed to an insured. In Ring v Meeker Sharkey Associates LLC, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division recently upheld the trial court’s decision that the Plaintiffs’ homeowners’ insurance brokers did not owe a duty to advise the insureds of vulnerability in their coverage and a need for excess flood insurance. Ring is another case developing New Jersey’s insurance law following Hurricane Sandy. The Plaintiffs owned two beachfront homes along the Jersey Shore. For more than a decade, they secured both homeowners and flood insurance for the homes through Defendant Meeker Sharkey. In 2008, Plaintiffs moved their insurance accounts to Willis of New Jersey. In 2010, Plaintiffs’ moved their homeowners’ coverage back to Meeker Sharkey, but continued to secure flood insurance through Willis. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy ravaged Plaintiffs’ properties, causing catastrophic – and largely uncovered – losses to both. The crux of the ensuing litigation was Plaintiffs argument that as part of their transfer of homeowners’ insurance back to Meeker Sharkey in 2010, the firm undertook a review of Plaintiffs’ insurance coverage generally, and therefore owed a duty to alert Plaintiffs to their gap in flood insurance coverage, as well as a duty to affirmatively advise them to obtain excess floor insurance. The Ring Court decision underscores and reiterates than in New Jersey, the determination of whether a duty exists is a question of law to be determined by the courts, while also noting that there is no bright-line rule and that the inquiry is intensely fact-specific. Here, the Court found that the homeowners’ insurance broker did not have a duty to provide advice about flood insurance where the Plaintiffs engaged a separate entity, Willis, to secure its flood insurance. The fact that Meeker Sharkey knew or should have known of the gap in coverage did not create a duty to Plaintiffs under these circumstances. Ultimately, the Ring court was not called to determine whether Willis had breached the duty it owed. The question of whether or not that duty was breached is one of fact, for a jury. Thanks to Vivian Turetsky for her contribution to this post. Previous Next Contact

News WCM is Pleased to Announce that Matt Care has been Promoted to Partner June 30, 2021 < Back Share to: Effective, July 1, 2021, Matt Care is officially the newest partner in WCM's Philadelphia office. Matt started working at WCM in 2015. He primarily defends individuals and businesses in a wide variety of general liability, construction defect, premises liability, insurance coverage disputes, bad faith claims, professional liability claims, and product liability lawsuits, from inception up to and including trial. Matt regularly achieves excellent, cost-effective results for his clients and further has significant experience dealing with large loss, high exposure, and complex civil matters. Matt is a graduate of Princeton University and Temple University Beasley School of Law and is regularly involved with the local LGBT professional law organizations. Previous Next Contact