News WCM is Pleased to Announce that James W. Scott, Jr. has been Promoted to Partner July 1, 2022 < Back Share to: Effective July 1, 2022, Jim Scott, who works in our Philadelphia office, has been promoted to partner. Jim is the current President of the Pennsylvania Defense Institute and a past-President of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel. As such he is the only attorney ever elected president of both defense organizations. Jim is a graduate of Duke University and Temple University School of Law. With 28 years of experience, Jim focuses his practice on the defense of construction defect, construction accident, premises liability, and products liability claims. Prior to becoming an attorney, Jim was the Assistant Director of Operations with the largest fabricator/erector of structural steel in the Delaware Valley. As such, his construction defect practice has been substantially enhanced by significant real world experience. Previous Next Contact

News Court Rejects Jeweler's Fragile Argument Against Brinks February 8, 2012 < Back Share to: Anyone dealing in the world of jewelry, fine art, or specie is all too aware of the limitation of liability clauses that appear in shipping contracts. That issue was front and center in a recent appellate court decision in New York, Maxine v. Brinks. Plaintiff, a jewelry retailer, used Brinks to ship 157 “ornate pieces of handmade jewelry” from plaintiff's New York City facility to a department store in Virginia. The items were contained in a soft-sided rolling suitcase, and the airbill listed a declared value of $2 million. The retail value, according to invoices, was more than $6,000,000, with a wholesale value about half that amount. While in transport, the shipment was damaged, and plaintiff’s claim was over $600,000. In the trial court, Brinks was awarded summary judgment and the complaint was dismissed. The airbill contained a provision limiting Brink’s liability to lost shipments, unless specific items were identified and their values declared – which would have required plaintiff to pay additional charges for the shipment. On appeal, plaintiff claimed that the limitation of liability was ambiguous, because it required identification of a “fragile” item -- a term not defined anywhere in the Brink’s airbill. But in its decision, the appellate court pointed out that plaintiff was unable to overcome the other provision in the airbill that excluded breakage for jewelry. Specifically, the provision excluded “BREAKAGE of statuary, marble, glassware, bric-a-brac,' porcelain, decorative items including jewelry and similar fragile articles…” Plaintiff tried to claim that provision was buried in small print and was also ambiguous because it lumped together a number of items in an unclear manner, and appeared to only apply to breakage of “fragile jewelry” or certain decorative items. But the Court rejected plaintiff’s claims, finding that the list clearly excluded the enumerated items, including jewelry, and that a definition for fragile only needed to be applied if an item was not specifically listed. Thus, the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint was upheld. If you would like more information about this case, please write to mbono@wcmlaw.com .     Previous Next Contact

News SJ Granted In Face Of Conclusory Defendant Affidavit On Labor Law Claim (NY) December 9, 2022 < Back Share to: This week the First Department, Appellate Division, in Castillo v. TRM Contracting 626 LLC, et al., 2022-00671, affirmed a worker’s partial motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability. While attempting to cover a window with plastic before starting to paint, plaintiff proved that he fell from an unsecured, 6-to-8-foot-tall A-frame ladder that was in poor condition and leaning against a wall in a closed position because of obstructions at the work site, namely, large boxes preventing him from fully opening the ladder. This established a violation under Labor Law § 240(1) because the workplace conditions prevented a worker from placing the ladder in an open, secure position, causing the worker injury because the ladder shifted, slipped, or collapsed. The Court faulted defendants for their failure to raise an issue of fact through an affidavit from defendant’s principal, holding that that affidavit was conclusory and did not cite any facts describing the location of plaintiff’s accident, did not show that the principal was aware of where plaintiff had been working, and did explain how plaintiff could have opened the ladder and properly secured it in the work area. Moreover, the competing affidavit did not deny plaintiff’s testimony that he was not allowed to move the boxes. The Court also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s partial motion was premature because defendants did not prove that the foreman, whose deposition defendants wanted to take but had never noticed, would provide relevant testimony as he was not present to supervise plaintiff the day of the accident. Thanks to Abed Bhuyan for his contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Co-op Owners Exempt from NY Labor Law January 12, 2011 < Back Share to: In Sigal v. Brokaw (11839/2006), Anatoily Sigal, a painter who was working in the defendant’s cooperative unit, was injured as the result of a fall from a scaffold. Kings County Justice Martin Schneier held that the defendants were entitled to a dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) claims. The Court cited to an earlier decision in the Second Department in Maciejewski v. 975 Park Ave. Corp., which held that cooperative unit owners are statutorily exempt from Labor Law claims under the exception for "owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work." Here, it was undisputed that the Brokaws did not "direct or control the work," warranting dismissal. Thanks to Chris O'Leary for his contribution to this post. If you have any questions or comments, please contact mbono@wcmlaw.com Previous Next Contact

News WCM Attorney Appointed to Vice-Chair of DRI Subcommittee. January 8, 2019 < Back Share to: WCM is pleased to announce Counsel Colleen Hayes was recently appointed the Co-Vice-Chair for Social Media for the DRI’s Young Lawyers Steering Committee. The selection process draws from a national pool of applicants from all practice areas within the defense bar. In her role as a Steering Committee Member, Colleen recently wrote an article offering advice to young attorneys on how to begin developing business. For more information about this post, please contact Colleen at chayes@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News WCM Is Pleased To Introduce Our 2022 Summer Associates July 7, 2022 < Back Share to: New Jersey Ryan Dame is a rising 3L at Brooklyn Law School who will graduate early in December 2022 as part of the accelerated program. Ryan is a graduate of the University of California, San Diego with a degree in political science. Prior to joining WCM, Ryan served our country as a member of the United States Marine Corp. where Ryan was a collateral duty quality assurance representative and a master training specialist. Most recently, Ryan interned with ECPAT-USA and for a civil judge in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. Steve Kaufman is a rising 3L at Cardozo School of Law and a graduate of the University of Miami where Steve earned a degree in history with a minor in entrepreneurship. Prior to joining WCM, Steve interned for a civil judge in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County and interned with a commercial law firm with a focus on domain transfers and securities regulation. Steve also dabbled in the music industry during his undergraduate years. New York Sara Cardamone is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh with a degree in communication and sociology. Prior to joining WCM, Sara interned for a civil judge in Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County and interned with the New York State Division of Human Rights with a focus on assisting in the investigation of discrimination complaints. Andrew Henriquez is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of Brown University with a degree in public policy and economics. Prior to joining WCM, Andrew participated in a variety of internships, including with the Office of the New York City Comptroller, Bureau of Law and Adjustment and also worked as an assistant paralegal at an immigration firm. Andrew has also volunteered with the Consumer Credit Court Observation Project and the New York City Community Emergency Response Team. Michelle Palagi is a rising 3L at Cardozo School of Law and a graduate of Baruch College with a degree in industrial/organizational psychology. Prior to joining WCM, Michelle interned with an employment law firm and the Orthodox Union and participated in a divorce mediation clinic. Michelle speaks many languages including Hebrew and Georgian. Mark Rodriguez is a rising 3L at Brooklyn Law School and a graduate of Siena College with a degree in history. Prior to joining WCM, Mark interned with a New York law firm with a focus on medical malpractice, sexual assault and personal injury cases and was a legal fellow with Touro Law Center. Mark is an avid Mets fan. Alexa Schimp is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of The Catholic University of America with a degree in philosophy. Prior to joining WCM, Alexa was a legal extern for the Girls Scouts of America, interned with Legal Outreach and was a legal resource assistant for an intellectual property firm. Alexa is a literature buff with a focus on WWII/Holocaust history and also dabbles in experimental cooking. Brian Tully is a rising 3L at St. John’s University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Virginia. Prior to joining WCM, Brian participated in various judicial internships and externships, including with Surrogate’s Court – 10th District Nassau County and New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County. Pennsylvania Sydney Kockler is a rising 3L at Villanova University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh with a degree in political science and communication. Prior to joining WCM, Sydney participated in various internships and externships, including with the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, and Bravo with a focus on research-based blogs and developing social copy to accompany web posts for Facebook and Twitter. Jack McGuire is a rising 3L at Villanova University School of Law and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame with a degree in economics and minors in computing digital technology and public service. Jack also was selected for Notre Dame’s study abroad program and did a semester on Berlin, German. Jack’s vast interests include chess, juggling, basketball, soccer, badminton and volleyball. Prior to joining WCM, Jack interned with the US Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Domenica Tomasetti is a rising 3L at Villanova University School of Law and a graduate of The Catholic University of America with a degree in political science with a minor in psychology. Prior to joining WCM, Domenica interned with one of the justices of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, was a legal research assistant for a Villanova professor and interned with the Office of the District Attorney in Delaware County. Domenica was also an assistant women’s basketball coach while at Catholic University. Previous Next Contact

News Property Damage Claim Goes Up In Smoke (NY) June 6, 2017 < Back Share to: The question of whether the contents of a disclaimer letter could limit an insurer in a later denial of a property damage claim was addressed recently by the Second Department in Swanson v. Allstate. Therein, the court determined that an insurer does not waive its right to rely on an exclusion in the policy if that exclusion was not cited in the initial disclaimer letter. Swanson owned commercial property that was vacant for six months before a fire damaged the building. Swanson made a claim for loss with its carrier, Allstate. Allstate’s initial disclaimer letter failed cite to the policy’s “vandalism” exclusion that excluded fire damages if caused by vandalism in a building left vacate for more than 90 consecutive days. Based upon the town fire investigator's report, the fire was intentionally set, and the owner had admitted to the vacancy in excess of 90 days. A lower court denied Allstate’s summary judgment motion finding that the exclusion was waived under Insurance Law 3420(d) because it was not mentioned in the disclaimer letter. However, the Second Department reversed finding that Section 3420(d) only applied to claims involving death and bodily injury, and hence, not applicable to a pure property damage claim. Thanks to Georgia Coats for her contribution. For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at dricci@wcmlaw.com .   Previous Next Contact

News It’s Electric: Broad Construction Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sprinkler Shock (NY) January 30, 2020 < Back Share to: In the recent decision Castlepoint Ins. Co. v Southside Manhattan View LLC, the First Department addressed the applicability of a broadly worded construction exclusion. That exclusion expressly provides that it applies to any work performed as part of or in connection with the enumerated construction operations. The underlying litigation concerned a personal injury that occurred at a construction site. The plaintiff alleged that while working on sprinklers at the site of a renovation project, he fell off a ladder after touching live, uninsulated electrical wires. The insurer for the building disclaimed coverage, citing the construction exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff argued that the work he was doing at the time of the injury, working on sprinklers, was not a part of any of the specific construction operations enumerated in the exclusion, and accordingly should not apply. But the court was not convinced. The First Department held that because the exclusion language applied not only to work that was part of but also “in connection to” the enumerated operations, it unambiguously applied to the sprinkler operations at issue. This decision is a reminder to insurers and insureds of the importance of precise drafting in insurance contracts, particularly with respect to exclusions. Thanks to Andrew Debter for his contribution to this post. Please email Georgia Coats with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News The Big Legal Problem in NYC? Bad Trees. May 15, 2012 < Back Share to: When you think of New York City, capitol of the universe, you probably think of such things as skyscrapers, crowds, hot dogs and the Yankees. But what you probably don’t think of is trees. Yet it is trees that are causing an increasing number of legal headaches for the Big Apple. NYC has approximately 2.5 million trees in the City’s parks and streets and there are plans to plant 1 million more over the next few years. The problem is that, as a result of poor training and a lack of budget funds, the trees are not being properly monitored for damage/disease or other problems. Thus, over the last 5 years, 49 people have been injured and 2 people have been killed by falling trees. Certainly, these are not enormous numbers, but when the NYT runs a front page essay on the problem (and cites trial and deposition testimony) you can bet that the plaintiffs bar is paying attention. You can also surely bet that the Mayor’s office is paying attention – might a change to tree responsibility be around the corner (similar to the sidewalk liability changes of 2003)? Stay tuned to find out. For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News WCM PA Associate Is Recipient of Defense Association Award. June 28, 2017 < Back Share to: On June 6, 2017, the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, one of the oldest local defense organization in the country (now in its 70th year), awarded the 2017 Joseph H. Foster Young Lawyer Award to Hillary Ladov, a coverage and commercial litigator in Wade Clark Mulcahy, LLP's Philadelphia office. The award is given to a “young lawyer who best exemplifies the qualities of professionalism and dedication as defense counsel in the practice of law and in the promotion of the highest ideals of justice in the community”. Hillary received the award in recognition of her quality legal work as well as her pro bono work with non-profits, low-wage workers, and Jewish graduate students in Philadelphia as well as her service to the Philadelphia Bar Association. A donation will be made by the PADC to Hillary’s designated charity. Previous Next Contact

News A.D. Defines Foreseeability Of Crime Necessary For Negligent Security Claims June 25, 2008 < Back Share to: In Maria T. v. New York Holding Company Associates et al, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted at gunpoint in her apartment. In her lawsuit, she claimed that the defendants failed to provide adequate security for the building where she lived. She asserted that the defendants failed to maintain a working lock on the sole entrance into the building. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the assault was not foreseeable in that they were unaware of any criminal activity in the building other than the crime at issue and that the prior crimes relied upon by plaintiff were not similar to the assault and therefore did not demonstrate that the assault was foreseeable. In opposition, plaintiff relied upon police reports that reflected criminal activities that occurred in or near the building to establish that this crime was foreseeable. Plaintiff also retained an expert in the field of premises security who opined that the subject apartment building was in a police precinct with high rates of crime and the drug activity in the neighborhood attracted criminal elements to the neighborhood, thereby making the assault on plaintiff foreseeable. The Trial Court denied defendants' motion, citing a question of fact as to the issue of foreseeability. In reversing this decision, the Appellate Division, First Department held that building owners and managing agents have a common-law duty to take minimal security precautions to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. In order to establish foreseeability, the criminal conduct at issue must be shown to be reasonably predictable based upon prior occurrences of the same or similar criminal activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location. While plaintiff cited seven prior instances of criminal activity in and around the apartment building, ambient neighborhood crime alone is insufficient to establish foreseeability. In conjunction with the fact that none of them were similar to the sexual assault committed against the plaintiff, the crime perpetrated upon plaintiff was not foreseeable ie., reasonably predictable. http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_05558.htm Previous Next Contact

News Risk of Falling Masonry Subject to 240 Claim December 15, 2010 < Back Share to: A New York motion court has held that falling masonry and other structural components, unsecured as a part of demolition work, is not an inherent or ordinary risk of the workplace and is therefore covered by the Labor Law §240(1) statute. In Castro v. JK USA Group, Inc., (19396/08), plaintiff, a demolition worker who was in the process of dismantling a wall by striking cement blocks with a hammer, allegedly sustained injuries when a co-worker ”hit something" that caused a cement block to fall on plaintiff's left hand. Kings County Justice Jack Battaglia held that defendants are not entitled to a dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) claims on the grounds that the falling objects were not being hoisted or secured at the time they fell and there was a minimal height difference between where the brick was situated and where it struck the plaintiff. The court added that defendants failed to establish that the cement block did not "require securing for the purposes of the undertaking" or that there was any protective device designed to catch the cement blocks as the wall was being dismantled. Rulings such as these continue to expand the scope of strict liability Labor Law claims owner defendants face in New York. Special thanks to Chris O’Leary for this post. If you have any questions or comments, please email Paul at pclark@wcmlaw.com http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/CaseDecisionNY.jsp?id=1202475940334 Previous Next Contact