Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News FLORIDA’S NEW YEARS RESOLUTION: Complying With Amendments To Rules of Civil Procedure Promoting Active Case Management September 6, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ Effective January 1, 2025, every civil case filed throughout Florida’s twenty judicial circuit courts must adhere to a new procedural framework that stresses strict compliance with deadlines and establishes exacting standards to be met by any party seeking to modify or extend them. Even before Florida’s courts were awash with cases filed on the eve of comprehensive tort reform legislation being enacted and the courts were backlogged with Covid-era cases, Chief Justice Canady established the Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases in 2019, with the aim of “promot[ing] the fair and timely resolution of civil cases.” In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (Fla. 2024). Under the new amendments, within 120 days of a complaint being filed, the court will now assess the case to determine the amount of judicial attention expected to be required for its resolution and assign it to one of three case management tracks: streamlined, general or complex. The lion’s share of cases will be classified as “general.” The court will issue a case management order with a projected or actual trial period and establish deadlines for service, adding new parties, completing fact and expert discovery, resolving all objections to pleadings and pretrial motions and completing court-ordered alternative dispute resolution. The deadlines established by the case management order must be strictly enforced and are only able to be modified by court order. The court may set, either on its own notice or on proper notice by a party, case management conferences at any time. Attorneys appearing at such conference must be prepared to address all pending matters in the case, have authority to make representations to the court and enter into binding agreements concerning motions, issues and scheduling. The court may sanction any party for failing to appear at a case management conference by dismissing the action, striking the pleadings, limiting proof or witnesses or imposing any other sanction it deems appropriate. To modify a deadline, amend a case management order or alter a projected trial period, a motion must specify the basis for the extension and the time at which the basis became known to the movant. The motion must also specify whether the extension is agreed by the parties, the specific date proposed for the extended deadline or projected trial period, and the action and timetable that will enable the movant to meet the proposed deadline or trial period. Motions to continue trial “are disfavored and should rarely be granted and then only upon good cause shown.” Id . A motion for continuance must be filed promptly upon the need arising for the continuance. Such a motion must certify that the movant made a reasonable effort to confer with opposing counsel. The failure to do so may form the basis for sanctions. The motion must be made in writing and state the basis for the continuance and the time at which the basis became known to the movant and whether the continuance is agreed by the parties. The motion must also identify the action and dates needed to be trial ready and include dates for third-party witnesses’ and/or expert witnesses’ availability; the specific date proposed for trial and whether that date is opposed. The motion must be signed by the named party requesting such relief. This new rubric requires counsel to be even more vigilant in actively advancing the defense of their clients or risk sanctions from the court. Previous Next Justine Elias Justine Elias Senior Associate 561 232 2587 jelias@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Jury Sides With The Mouse Against Disney Adults In VIP Club Lawsuit September 4, 2024 < Back Share to: ​ At a time when Disney’s legal team is in the news for all the wrong reasons, the House of Mouse has won a victory against a couple who claimed they were improperly removed from the roll of the Mega-Exclusive private Disneyland social club, Club 33. Club 33 is a semi-secret, exclusive club for high-net-worth Disney adults. Located in Disneyland’s New Orleans Square behind an unassuming blue door lies a members-only dining room and lounge where the VIPs mingle and filming is prohibited. Membership in Club 33 is reported to come with a $50,000 initiation fee, along with a more than $15,000 annual fee per person. This is, of course, on top of regular admission to the famously expensive park. Despite this cost, interested parties can wait more 15 years to get accepted into the lofty ranks. Scott and Diana Anderson became members of Club 33 in 2012 after being on the waiting list for nine years. As reported by the LA Times , the couple had made the Club the center of their social life. They brought friends, acquaintances, and business associates. As a couple, they claim to have gone on the Haunted Mansion ride nearly 1,000 times. The couple reportedly spent close to $125,000 annually on Disney outings. It is no surprise then, that when Scott and Diana Anderson were unceremoniously dropped from the ranks in 2017, the couple attempted to rejoin the ranks by any means necessary. This expulsion occurred after Scott was found one night outside California Adventure slurring, having difficulty standing, and smelling of alcohol. This was not this the first time that the couple had run afoul of Club 33. In August 2016, the couple were temporarily suspended when Diana caused a disruption in the Club 33 restaurant, shouting and using profanity. The couple were alerted in writing at that time that “if another infraction of the Club 33 Rules/Guidelines occurs, the Club 33 Membership will be subject to termination.” Accordingly, when Scott was found, apparently intoxicated, their membership was promptly revoked. After Disney refused to allow the couple to rejoin the ranks of Club 33, the couple brought a lawsuit in December 2017 in the Superior Court of Orange County, captioned Carlton Enterprises, Inc. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. The couple claimed that Scott was not intoxicated, and was instead suffering from the symptoms of a vestibular migraine. This condition can be triggered by red wine – one of the 3 drinks Scott admits to having that day. The couple argued that their expulsion amounted to discrimination for Scott’s medical condition. In their complaint, the couple demanded reimbursement for unused membership time in 2017, along with $231,000 – the equivalent of seven years in the club. Disney responded, and cited the Club 33 Guidelines: “Club 33 Membership is a privilege and not a right; therefore, immediate termination may be deemed as an appropriate step to resolve an issue after review of the matter by Club 33 Administration. There will be no refund of either the initiation fee or annual dues in the event of the termination of Club 33 Membership account.” The Guidelines forbid members of Club 33 from public intoxication in Disney parks. The case made it before a jury last month, where Disney continued to state that the Andersons were expelled in accordance with the Club 33 Guidelines. The jury sided with Disney in the matter, rejecting the claim that the expulsion was improper. After the verdict, Scott spoke with the LA Times. “My wife and I are both dead set that this is an absolute wrong, and we will fight this to the death. There is no way we’re letting this go.” The couple has spent $400,000 on the suit to date, but say that they will appeal the verdict. We understand Mickey could not be reached for comment. Previous Next Emily C. Walpole Emily C. Walpole Associate 332 345 2226 ewalpole@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Allstate’s “Collapse” Provision is Sturdy on Appeal (NY) April 3, 2019 < Back Share to: The Second Circuit recently ruled, across three similar cases, that the collapse provision within an Allstate Insurance Co. policy doesn’t cover the cost of fixing cracking in a home’s basement walls due to a defective concrete foundation. This ruling affirmed a lower Court’s decision to deny coverage to three Connecticut homeowners. Three cases filed by Allstate Policy Holders were the first of their kind to reach the federal appellate court. The basis for the lawsuits were Allstate’s denial of coverage pursuant to a clause that disclaims coverage for incidents that stem from faulty concrete used to pour the foundations for thousands of homes in Connecticut. Those homes foundations are now slowly collapsing and the cost of repair is significant. A panel of the Second Circuit held “the collapse provision in the Allstate homeowner’s insurance policy at issue here does not afford coverage for basement walls that exhibit signs of deterioration but that have not collapsed suddenly, accidentally, and entirely, as required by the policy.” The cases are Valls v. Allstate Insurance Co., case number 17-3495; Nancy E. Carlson et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., case number 17-3501; and Alan D. Lees et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., case number 18-007, all in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The cases serves as a reminder to homeowners and brokers to carefully read a policy of insurance during the procurement process, and the bring potential issues regarding concerning clauses to light with the broker or carrier before agreeing to the policy. Easier said than done, but here, the exclusionary language in the policy was clear. Thanks to Jon Avolio for his contribution to this post. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions.   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

Jason Laicha Associate Pennsylvania +1 267 239 5526 jlaicha@wcmlaw.com Professional Experience Jason Laicha assists with a wide variety of civil litigation, defending clients against general liability claims concerning property damage, premises liability, construction defects, automobile negligence, and personal injury. Additionally, Jason assists with advising insurers on a wide variety of coverage matters. Jason’s work includes reviewing complex insurance policies to determine the obligations of insurance companies in the wake of bodily injury or property damage and analyzing the impact of contracts for indemnification. Prior to joining WCM, Jason worked with the office of general counsel for a local school district, a boutique business law firm in Philadelphia, and one of the nation’s top consumer protection firms. In addition to the greater Philadelphia area, he has also lived and worked in Dublin, Ireland. Professional Activities Member of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D., Temple University – Beasley School of Law B.B.A., Villanova University – Villanova School of Business Bar Admissions Pennsylvania New York

News Employment Contracts In The Third Circuit March 27, 2012 < Back Share to: In Edwards v. Geisinger Clinic, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had an opportunity to rule on whether a physician had alleged sufficient evidence to support his breach of contract claim following his termination after roughly one year of employment. In Edwards, the physician believed that he was guaranteed employment at least until he completed the four-year program necessary for his board certification. The court rejected the physician’s argument upholding the dismissal of his complaint. The court reasoned that in order to overcome the presumption of employment at-will, a party must demonstrate with “clear and precise evidence” that the parties intended to enter into an employment contract for a definite term. The court noted that an employee’s “subjective expectation” of employment for a definite term does not demonstrate that there was in fact an employment contract for a definite term. Similarly, an employer’s “hope” that an employee would remain employed for a certain time would not demonstrate the existence of an employment contract for a set term. Thus, this case seems to evidence Pennsylvania’s strong presumption of employment at-will and the need to clearly set forth in the terms of a document a party’s desire to enter into an agreement for employment for a set period of time. http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticlePA.jsp?id=1202546842611&Third_Circuit_Weighs_in_on_Physician_Employment_Contract_Dispute&slreturn=1 Thanks to Colleen Hayes for her contribution to this post. Previous Next Contact

News Pa. Court Holds That Individuals Cannot "Drink Themselves" Into Coverage. December 23, 2009 < Back Share to: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania held that an individual's inebriated state did not render his attempted shooting of a woman accidental, and therefore did not trigger coverage under either his homeowner's policy or his personal umbrella liability policy. On March 25, 2005, Dr. Thomas Mehlman spent the afternoon drinking excessive amounts of alcohol at a restaurant. Afterwards, he was involved in a confrontation with Maria Iacono. In a drunken rage, he shot at her three times , and then killed himself. Iacono filed suit against Mehlman's estate, which sought coverage under his policies. Both policies excluded coverage for bodily injury caused by "willful and malicious acts of the insured". The court held that Mehlman's intoxication did not negate the intent on his part to harm Iacono. Mehlman's repeated attempts to shoot Iacono revealed unmistakable intent on his behalf, therefore, the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Mehlman's estate in the action. http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2009/12/22/106109.htm Thanks to Heather Aquino for her contribution to this post. Previous Next Contact

News 5 Day Mail Rule No Longer Applies to NY Summary Judgment Filing Deadline February 1, 2011 < Back Share to: < ![CDATA[5 Day Mail Rule No Longer Applies to NY Summary Judgment Filing Deadline]]> Previous Next Contact

News WCM Wins Summary Judgment on Premises Case in Queens September 28, 2018 < Back Share to: This past week, Wade Clark Mulcahy was victorious in its motion for summary judgment, absolving two homeowners of exposure in a sidewalk trip and fall case. Brian Gibbons and Chris Gioia prepared the motion, and Chris argued the motion before Hon. Ernest F. Hart of Queens County Supreme Court. In, Calle-Gonzalez v. Borukhov, the Court ruled that our clients, homeowners in Queens, were entitled to summary judgment for a trip and fall which occurred on the sidewalk in front of their single family home. Under New York City Administrative Code’s Section 7-210, liability for sidewalk defects is placed upon owners of the adjacent property. However, Section 7-210 also provides for an exception of one-two or three family homes. Judge Hart ruled that we demonstrated that unit was a single family, owner-occupied dwelling. Additionally, the Court found that the owners had not made negligent repairs, nor had they utilized the sidewalk for a ‘special use’, two exceptions which would deny summary judgment. Plaintiff's claims will continue against the City of New York, and will focus on the issue of notice. But, barring any appellate practice, our clients are out of this case permanently. The tricky aspect of motions like this one involves plugging up any potential holes that could create a "triable issue of fact," which could prompt SJ denial. At argument, Chris Gioia left no doubt that our clients were not liable here, and the Court agreed. Please email Brian Gibbons with any questions, or contact me on Twitter @bgibbons35. Previous Next Contact

News How Clear Does Your Policy Exclusion Need To Be In The AI Age? March 31, 2023 < Back Share to: In most jurisdictions, courts interpret policy language in favor of the insured, especially when it comes to ambiguous exclusions. With the rise of the Artificial Intelligence and its implication towards data privacy, insurance companies are facing potentially large claims from class action suits. In 2022, the Illinois Eastern Division District Court heard a coverage case arising from AI technology. Wynndalco is an IT consulting firm that is licensed to sell Clearview AI products in Illinois. Clearview AI is an artificial intelligence company that specializes in facial recognition software. A class action suit was filed against Wynndalco for violating an Illinois statute (Biometric Information Privacy Act) that regulates the collection of biometric information by selling Clearview products in Illinois. Wynndalco purchased a business owners insurance policy from Citizens and the policy provides coverage for “personal and advertising injury” with a number of exclusions including a statutory violation exclusion which excludes coverage for violation of TCPA, FCRA and state statutes regarding collecting or distributing of material or information. The court ruled that the exclusion was ambiguous on its face because the exclusion is overinclusive since most statutes regulate information to some degree. Further, the court could not interpret the language based on the exclusion purpose since the exclusion also applied to federal statutes like FCRA that regulates the credit reporting industry, not only to statutes that regulated distribution of information. In turn, the court ruled that Citizen owed a duty to defend Wynndalco and the exclusion above did not apply. As we are seeing the unparalleled advancement of AI technology and its implementation in various industries, policy exclusions can be the determining factor in potentially high liability exposures. Thanks to Yifan Lin for her contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Lloyd’s “Custom and Practice” Shield Shattered: EDNY Orders Lloyds’ to Release Attorney Client Communications April 14, 2016 < Back Share to: The ancient dictum – No Man May Serve Two Masters Without The Consent Of Both To The Double Employment – surfaced in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak], 2016 (E.D.N.Y.). And it surfaced to defeat Underwriter’s claim of attorney-client privilege in litigation with Amtrak over environmental contamination and asbestos exposure between 1972 and 1976. In that era, following established market “custom and practice” defense counsel’s reports were routinely routed to Underwriters through London brokers -- and this is precisely why Amtrak contended the privilege was waived. While market practices (to a degree) have since changed, the Amtrak decision is an important reminder that “direct reporting” (that is, from counsel to clients) is the only safe way to avoid an assault on attorney-client privilege. While Underwriters have moved for reconsideration of the order directing the release of what ordinarily would be protected, the case serves as a stern warning that using brokers as a distribution mechanism is a risky practice indeed. In general, to establish that attorney-client privilege attaches to a questioned document, the proponent must establish that the communications were: Between a client and his or her attorney;Intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential; andMade for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. In Amtrak, the attack focused on the second requirement. How could the questioned documents be confidential when they were distributed through the London brokers? Of significance, the court dismissed what it described as “flimsy and unsupported” claims of established market practice and necessity as grounds for overriding a central requirement of attorney-client privilege. We are following this case, but the clear takeaway is this: Adopt a direct reporting scheme for all matters in which you intend to preserve the sanctity of attorney-client communications. For more information, please email Dennis M. Wade at dwade@wcmlaw.com .     Previous Next Contact

News Subway False Advertising Suit Against Quiznos: Amateur Ad (Cold) Cuts Deep January 29, 2008 < Back Share to: Doctor's Associates, the owners of Subway, have commenced a lawsuit .against its competitor Quiznos based upon television commercials created by Quiznos as well as by amateurs in a 2006 ad campaign entitled "Quiznos vs. Subway TV Ad Challenge." Plaintiff charges defendants QIP Holder, a Quiznos subsidiary, and iFilm with making false claims and derogatory depictions of Subway sandwiches. The case is venued in the Federal District Court of Connecticut and will hinge upon the interpretation of the Lanham Act which prescribes trademark rights and the Communication Decency Act which safeguards the internet (commercials were posted on YouTube). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin Previous Next Contact