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 Court Holds Auto Carriers Subject To Bad Faith Statute February 15, 2011 < Back Share to: < ![CDATA[Pennsylvania Court Holds Auto Carriers Subject To Bad Faith Statute]]> 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 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 "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 In NY, a Tender Requires Support. August 12, 2011 < Back Share to: In Admiral Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., the plaintiff insurer sought a declaration that the defendant insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff P&K Contracting in the underlying personal injury action. The relevant facts of that tender are as follows. In October 2002, an employee of Shahid Enterprises, a subcontractor retained by P&K, was injured when he fell from a ladder. In 2003, the employee commenced a lawsuit. On September 22, 2003, United Claims Service, as authorized representatives of the plaintiff, sent a tender letter to Shahid demanding defense and indemnification. On December 17, 2003, UCS sent Shahid a follow up letter with copies to State Farm, Shahid’s insurer. In the letter, UCS did not indicate when it first received notice of the incident or lawsuit. State Farm claimed it did not receive this letter until January 22, 2004, because the letter was forwarded to an inactive claims office. On February 5, 2004, State Farm wrote to UCS and P&K requesting a copy of the file since it had no information on the accident. On March 19, 2004, State Farm sent UCS, plaintiff, P&K, and Shahid a letter wherein it reserved its right to deny defense and indemnity based on late notice. By letter dated April 13, 2004—now 113 days after UCS’ December 17, 2003 follow up letter—State Farm disclaimed coverage based on P&K’s failure to give prompt notice. Both plaintiff and defendant moved for summary judgment and both motions were denied, as the Supreme Court found that triable issues of fact existed as to whether State Farm disclaimed coverage as soon as was reasonably possible. In affirming the trial court's decision, the First Department focused on the fact that the December 17, 2003 follow up letter did not provide State Farm with any information regarding when P&K received notice of the incident or suit, and thus did not make it “readily apparent” that State Farm had the right to disclaim coverage. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted its disapproval of the policy of disclaiming now and investigating later. The moral of the story is -- if you're pressing a tender, make sure you provide enough information for the tender to be analyzed. Otherwise, you're going to be fighting a long legal battle. Special thanks to Gabe Darwick for his contributions to this post. For more information about it, or WCM's coverage practice, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News This and That by Dennis Wade August 5, 2021 < Back Share to: On April 3, 2018, I was called to jury service as a trial juror in Supreme Court, New York County. And, for a lawyer, being on the other side of the courtroom rail is a thought provoking experience. My chances of being chosen to sit on a civil tort suit, of course, were slim--former prosecutor, insurance defense and coverage attorney and an acquaintance with many of the plaintiff and defense practitioners in New York County. Step one in the jury selection process is Voir Dire, an Anglo-French term which literally means: To see, to speak. But I prefer the Latin derivation of the phrase: Verum dicere, meaning “To say what is true.” What the law wants is “fair and impartial” jurors who will decide the case on the facts disclosed at trial. What advocates want is something else--jurors “open” to their view of the matter on trial. Jury selection has become a science, a practice featured on Bull, a popular TV drama featuring Michael Weatherly playing Dr. Jason Bull, a character modeled after Phil McGraw who began one of the most successful trial consulting firms in the country. Like all jury consultants, Bull purports to use everything from social media to neurolinguistics to discern what really makes a juror tick, and thus either a good or bad choice for counsel. As I sat through my first voir dire in a medical malpractice action, I re-discovered, in a visceral way, what I always knew, the challenge for the lawyers is to judge whether the prospective juror is really saying what is true (verum dicere). Potential jurors who don’t want to serve, to be sure, know what answers to give. And all good advocates recognize these for what they are--polite fibs to avoid the trial time commitment. So, the real challenge begins when the fibbers fall away and the potential panel consists of those citizens prepared to give of their time to decide the contest. I have used jury consultants and their insights are often valuable. The usefulness of their contribution depends in large measure on how well counsel has developed its trial themes and the overall narrative of the story counsel plans to tell at trial. But the reality is jury consultants are pricey and the cost often outweighs the potential benefit in the garden variety controversy. So, how do you tell whether the juror is telling the truth about potential bias, about attitudes, about whatever issue matters to your trial themes. There are no magic answers. Go with your gut. And if you want a rationale for this tried and true advice, I urge you to read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell who had a simple but profound insight: We get into trouble when we try to talk ourselves out of a gut feeling. According to Gladwell, our brains are fabulous microprocessors that process information on many, many levels--levels well beyond our conscious awareness. Say, for example, your gut tells you something is “off” about an engineer in the panel of prospective jurors; yet, your mind tells you a person trained to solve problems and think logically is ideal. What to do? Gladwell would urge you to follow your instinct and use a peremptory challenge to strike the engineer. By now, after this musing, you're wondering what became of my jury service. I was bounced from a panel in a medical malpractice “pre-qualification” panel because WCM had cases with defense counsel’s firm. And, at 4pm, the jury clerk dismissed everyone because so few cases were trial ready because of Spring Break Week. But back to Gladwell, and another word of caution. A nurse excused from the same med-mal panel and I started chatting as we headed for the exit upon being excused from our term of service. But she, unlike me, sat through several hours of questioning. Bold, and thinking of Gladwell, I asked my new friend: “Based on what you saw during voir dire--and if you needed a lawyer--who would you hire?” “Easy call,” she said, “Plaintiff’s Attorney.” Puzzled, I asked why, because, to my eye, defendant’s counsel seemed, well, more authentic and in command. The answer? “Defendant’s counsel slouched and was sloppy in appearance. “ The moral of this tale is this: Stand straight and wear clothes that fit. To give my elevator friend due credit, defendant’s lawyer did look like he was wearing his older brother’s suit. And it was green, a poor color choice for an advocate unless, of course, you are Reaganesque. And that’s it for this This and That. Previous Next Contact

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 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 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

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 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