Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

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

News NJ Deemer statute metaphysically endorses Out-of-State Auto Policy February 11, 2011 < Back Share to: It is well established in New Jersey that unloading of a truck involves the “use” of that vehicle for purposes of omnibus auto insurance coverage. When an injury occurs during unloading then, provided that the injury arose out of the unloading operations, the auto insurance policy provisions apply to the claim. But what if the auto policy is issued out of state? Do the New Jersey omnibus insurance obligations prevail where that policy includes exclusions that would preclude such coverage? The answer boils down to whether the out-of-state policy was issued by an admitted carrier. If so, the New Jersey Deemer Statute requires the policy to be read in accordance with the State’s omnibus insurance provisions which in effect “metaphysically” endorse the out-of-state policy. To the extent that such a policy would deny coverage for an unloading injury, pertinent policy exclusions are held invalid. Significantly though, the remaining policy terms, such as policy limits, remain in effect as written. In The Burlington Insurance Company v. Northland Insurance Company, the Hon. Dickinson Debevoise, U.S.S.D.J. of the New Jersey District Court ruled that a general liability insurer was entitled to reimbursement from a commercial auto insurer for such a claim. Northland, an admitted New Jersey auto insurer, had issued a Pennsylvania insured a Pennsylvania commercial auto policy. When Northland failed to evaluate coverage for an unloading accident that occurred in New Jersey under this State’s deemer statute, a declaratory judgment action followed. The Court held that the Pennsylvania commercial auto policy indeed covered the unloading accident up to that policy’s full limits and that the liability insurer was entitled to reimbursement for defense and indemnification costs of its insured as well as costs incurred in the declaratory judgment. http://pdf.wcmlaw.com/pdf/northland.pdf For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at dricci@wcmlaw.com Previous Next Contact

News Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith Against Insurer Insufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss (PA) January 8, 2021 < Back Share to: Recently, in Daniel Dietz v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether the factual averments in the plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient to overcome Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s partial motion to dismiss Dietz’s bad faith claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By way of brief background, Dietz was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a driver who was insured by Farmers’ Insurance Company. At the time of the accident, Dietz was insured under an automobile policy issued by Liberty. On behalf of Dietz, Liberty obtained a settlement; unfortunately, the settlement was insufficient to cover all of Dietz’s medical expenses from the accident. Accordingly, Dietz submitted an underinsured motorist claim (“UIM”) with Liberty, which Liberty ultimately denied. Subsequently, Liberty offered to settle the UIM claim; however, Dietz rejected the proposed settlement as he believed Liberty erroneously did not obtain an additional stacking waiver when Dietz added a fifth vehicle to his automobile policy. After Liberty denied Dietz’s request for a copy of Liberty’s underwriting file, Dietz commenced the instant action, alleging claims for a declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith. In support of its motion to dismiss, Liberty argued Dietz failed to state a bad faith claim upon which relief can be granted. In consideration of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371 through the lens of the Court’s well-established standard of review, the Court determined Dietz failed to plead a claim for bad faith as the complaint contained no factual content indicating Liberty lacked a reasonable basis for denying his claim and that Dietz failed to show it either knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis. In addition, the Court concluded Dietz’s complaint, as pleaded, asks the Court to infer Liberty’s motive in refusing to produce its underwriting file was to deceive Dietz. Further, the Court cited other reasons why Liberty could have refused to produce a copy of its underwriting file, such as the fact that underwriting files often contain confidential business information. As the Court held the complaint failed to make any real factual averments, the Court granted Liberty’s motion and dismissed Dietz’s claim for bad faith. Ultimately, this case is a reminder of impact motions to dismiss can have on litigation in federal courts, and the premium courts place on well-pled complaints. Thanks to Lauren Berenbaum for her contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Preservation of Appellate Review – Is It Waived? July 21, 2023 < Back Share to: Dupree v. Younger, Case Number 22-210 (May 25, 2023) addresses the preservation of legal issues for appellate review. In Dupree, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a summary judgment motion “allows the district court to take first crack at the question that the appellate court will ultimately face: Was there sufficient evidence in the trial record to support the jury’s verdict?” The court also found that “[b]ecause the factual record developed at trial supersedes the record existing at the time of the summary judgment motion, it follows that a party must raise a sufficiency [of the evidence] claim in a post-trial motion in order to preserve it for appeal.” The court further found that a “repeat-motion requirement” would be an “empty exercise,” where the averse ruling is based on a purely legal issue because “a purely legal question is, by definition, one whose answer is independent of disputed facts” and, thus, “factual development at trial will not change the district court’s answer.” Applying this reasoning to the case at hand, the Dupree Court unanimously held that where an averse pretrial ruling is based on a purely legal issue, a litigant need not, to preserve the issue for appellate review, re-raise the issue at or after trial. The Take Away. Be careful! While Dupree eliminates the need to re-raise averse rulings on purely legal issues; to avoid waiver, and preserve appellate review of fact-based issues, one must re-raise the fact-based issue(s) at trial and by post-trial motion. Thanks to Charles "Chip" George for this post. Please contact Chip with any questions. 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

News PA Appellate Court Clarifies Insured’s Right to Own Counsel. August 8, 2011 < Back Share to: In the case of Eckman v. Erie Insurance, Solid Waste Services sued Eckman for false statements made during a local election campaign. Eckman presented the claim to its homeowner’s carrier, Erie. Erie assigned defense counsel under a reservation of rights. The ROR noted that intentional acts and punitive damages were excluded from coverage. Eckman rebuffed Erie’s assigned counsel and instead demanded counsel of its own choosing. When that offer was rejected, Eckman commenced a declaratory judgment action and sought injunctive relief to force Erie to provide Eckman with counsel of Eckman’s choosing. In making its argument, Eckman relied upon admittedly non-binding Pennsylvania case law and suggested that “a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, exclusive of Pennsylvania case law.” Eckman argued that any attorney selected by an insurer under a reservation of rights, and paid by that insurer, would ipso facto breach his or her obligations to the insured/client. Eckman’s claim was rejected both by the trial court and the Superior Court. In a good result for insurers, the court reasoned that a conflict of interest (such to support the assignment of independent counsel) must be proven and cannot merely be presupposed. This decision is consistent with controlling PA precedent and as the court rightfully noted, it is bound to “follow controlling precedent as long as decision has not been overturned by the Supreme Court.” So, in Pennsylvania at least, a reservation of rights does not automatically trigger a right to independent counsel. If you have any questions about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . 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 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 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 SDNY: Suit Alleging Christie’s Misidentification of da Vinci Work Time Barred February 12, 2011 < Back Share to: While the art world is riddled with forgeries and stolen works or art, some dealers may also have to be mindful of the reputable auction houses which display their collections. Last week, District Judge John Koetl of the Southern District of New York, dismissed as time barred an action by Jeanne Marchig, and her charitable trust, against Christie’s -- http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/DaVinci.pdf The suit alleged that Christie's negligently failed to identify her piece of art as a valuable drawing done by Leonardo da Vinci. The relevant facts are as follows. Jeanne Marchig approached the London location of the famed auction house seeking to consign and auction off a drawing she believed was composed by a late-Renaissance Italian painter. Christie’s resident old master drawing’s expert examined the piece and set an estimated value of $12,000-15,000. In January 1998, it ultimately sold at auction for $22,000. More than 11 years later, in July 2009, Marchig was approached by other experts in the art world who believed her previously sold drawing was actually the work of da Vinci, and could be valued as high as $100 million. Marchig brought an action against Christie’s claiming the auction house had been careless and failed to properly investigate her drawing. While both sides engaged experts to determine the authenticity and true origin of the work, Christie’s moved to bar the claims as untimely, alleging the applicable statute of limitations (3 years – negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and 6 years – negligent appraisal) had long since expired. Judge Koetl agreed and dismissed the action as too much time had passed between the appraisal in question and the suit. Special thanks to Chris O'Leary for his contributions to this post. For more information about it, or WCM's fine art practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News Mere Presence Of A Hazard Does Not Create Liability August 18, 2011 < Back Share to: In Atashi v. Fred-Doug 117, LLC, the First Department reaffirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s compliant, holding that the defendants did not create the alleged dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident, nor did they have actual or constructive notice. Atashi, a security guard at the defendants’ building, tripped and fell over a large flatbed dolly that tenants sometimes borrowed from the building staff. The court held that the presence of the dolly alone did not equate liability onto the defendants. Atashi conceded that the dolly was not in the hallway five hours prior to the accident, and he would have been the only employee on site that day responsible for inspecting the location on the defendants’ behalf. Thus, absent any evidence to establish that the defendants created the condition, or would have been made aware of the condition by another building employee, his complaint had to be dismissed. Thanks to Lora Gleicher for her contribution to this post. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_06290.htm Previous Next Contact