Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News Warning Regarding Iranian Cyber Threat Issued by NY Financial Services Regulator (NY) January 10, 2020 < Back Share to: In recent years, the need for companies to take precautions with respect to cyber security, and risks insurers need to analyze in the cyber insurance space, have been widely-reported. Current events always seem to be relevant in this field. The recent news about the tensions between the United States and Iran are no exception. Due to the conflict with Iran, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) has issued a warning to banks, insurers and other businesses it supervises about an increased risk of cyber attacks orchestrated by hackers associated with the Iranian government as a result of the airstrike that killed Iran’s top general. DFS issued a letter to all regulated entities stressing the need for more stringent cybersecurity precautions in light of the mounting tensions between the U.S and Iran after the air strike that killed General Qasem Soleimani. Specifically the letter states “ DFS therefore strongly recommends that all regulated entities heighten their vigilance against cyberattacks…While currently there are no specific, credible reports of new Iranian-sponsored cyberattacks in the past few days, all regulated entities should be prepared to respond quickly to any suspected cyber incident.” DFS’ warning came on the same day that the U.S. Homeland Security issued its own warning about the mounting Iranian hacking threat. Relations with countries are always worth monitoring for obvious reasons, but insurers would be wise not to overlook the risks associated with cyberattacks. Thanks to Jon Avolio for his contribution to this post. Please email Michael Gauvin with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News One Warning on Snow Thrower is Enough January 5, 2024 < Back Share to: Plaintiffs cannot insist manufacturers warn against dangers that may arise if warnings that are stated are not heeded. Plaintiff Robert Brewer injured his middle finger when he placed his hand in the blades of a snow thrower he believed to be turned off. Brewer v. Troy-Bilt LLC , 2023 WL 7167564, at 1 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2023). Brewer brought a claim against the manufacturer of the snow thrower alleging that there “were not adequate warnings on the machine itself alerting him to the danger of cleaning a clog without removing the ignition key.” Id. at 2. The snow thrower's manual contained multiple warning regarding the engines, blades, and their operations. Id. at *1. The machine itself contained “warnings to keep hands and feet away from the blades and discharge chute, and warnings to shut off the engine before using the clean-out tool to clear a clog.” Id. Brewer inserted his hand in the discharge chute to clear a clog in the chute, when the snow thrower allegedly started and the blades began to rotate. Id. While plaintiffs conceded that the warning existed in the manual, plaintiffs argued that that warning should have been additionally placed on the machine. Id. at *3 . Furthermore, the machine had a warning specifically to not place one’s hands in the discharge chute, and Brewer was aware of the warning. Id. However, plaintiffs sought an additional warning “ that would have instructed Mr. Brewer to make sure the machine was fully powered down by removing the ignition key before disregarding the existing warnings and putting his hand in the discharge chute.” Id . The Court discussed a state case with similar facts where an injured employee “ignored warnings to keep her hands out of a meat blender and placed her hands in the blender when she thought it was turned off.” Id. at 4. That employee effectively “request[ed] that the court require a manufacturer to warn against dangers that may arise if the stated warnings are not heeded.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in that case, Davis v. Berwind Corp. , 547 Pa. 260 (1997), reasoned that Pennsylvania law “presumes warnings will be obeyed.” Id. at 5. Thus, in the case at hand, it was enough that there was a “sufficiently prominent warning not to place one’s hand in the discharge chute,” id. at 4, and Brewer was aware of that warning. Overall, this stands for the proposition that manufacturers do need not create additional warnings that “are only useful if the current warning is ‘blatantly ignored.’” Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted). Brewer v. Troy-Bilt LLC .pdf Download PDF • 191KB Previous Next Sarah Polacek Sarah Polacek Senior Associate +1 267 239 5526 spolacek@wcmlaw.com Contact

News New York's Highest Court Affirms WCM's Victory Regarding Tenders in Public Sidewalk Cases December 4, 2025 < Back Share to: The New York Court of Appeals left intact our client’s AI coverage win in the First Department, which we reported on here: https://www.wcmlaw.com/news/first-department-rules-that-circumstances-do-matter-in-evaluating-ai-tenders-in-public-sidewalk-cases . In denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal, New York’s high court confirms that circumstances do matter in AI tender disputes. In February 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed summary judgment for our client, which insured a ground-level commercial tenant. After a pedestrian tripped and fell over a bulkhead around the corner from the insured’s tenancy, the building owner pressed for coverage citing the additional insured provision of the tenant’s insurance policy. We pushed back because the particular circumstances of our case did not trigger AI coverage. New York courts agreed. A great win for our client. The defense started at the tender stage and concludes with New York’s high court refusing to take the appeal. Please see below for our original post regarding the important Appellate Division decision. Please contact Dennis Wade or Abed Bhuyan for more information about this decision or WCM's insurance coverage practice. Previous Next Dennis M. Wade Dennis M. Wade Partner +1 212 267 1900 dwade@wcmlaw.com Contact

News EDPA – In Recovering a Medical Lien, How Greedy Is Too Greedy? September 2, 2010 < Back Share to: In the midst of all the chaos generated by the CMS reforms, one central issue has remained constant – if a settlement results, how much money can the State get back? In the case of Angelique McKinney, et al. v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, et al., a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on this very issue. In McKinney, a persistent mold in public housing case, the plaintiffs reached a nearly $12,000,000 settlement with the Philadelphia Housing Authority. (As a side-note, the plaintiffs were able to get around the sovereign immunity issues usually present with the PHA by arguing that the case arose out of a “state-created danger.”) Once the settlement was reached, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare claimed that they were entitled to recover the full $1,200,000 value of the medical lien. Federal Judge Schiller rejected that argument -- https://ecf.paed.uscourts.gov/doc1/15318311551. He reduced the gross award to 2/3, i.e. to $843,930.77. He then further reduced the award by 1/3 for attorneys fees and for costs. The net lien recovery for the PHA was $537,448.43. In deciding on this award, the Court stressed that the $12,000,000 settlement reflected a compromise of a disputed claim that potentially had jury value in excess of $46,000,000. The Court wrote: “This Court holds that the method of determining this figure is neither Plaintiffs’ proffered “ratio theory” nor DPW’s proposed “full lien or half the settlement” presumption. Instead, the Court has considered the risks and uncertainties Plaintiffs faced in prevailing on their underlying claim and their probability of recovering past medical expenses in particular.” If you have any questions about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact