Of Interest

  1. Ski Shop Prevails in Battle of Meteorologists (NY) Friday, June 23, 2017 - In Griguts v. Alpin Haus Ski Shop, Inc. plaintiff fractured her left wrist after she slipped and fell on snow and ice while walking on the sidewalk in a strip mall owned by defendant Alpin Haus Ski Shop, Inc. and … Continue reading ...
  2. City of Philadelphia Responsible For Parking Lot Snow Removal (PA) Friday, June 23, 2017 - In Stuski v. Philadelphia Authority for Industry Development, the plaintiff worked for the City of Philadelphia police department’s traffic division, which leased offices in the Navy Yard in Philadelphia. The traffic division also leased an adjacent fenced parking lot for … Continue reading ...
  3. Supermarket Not Liable For Employee’s Harassment of Child Patron (NJ) Friday, June 23, 2017 - In Judy Doe v. Sake Shoprites, New Jersey’s Appellate Division analyzed whether the defendant supermarket was vicariously liable for negligently retaining employees who sexually harassed a young girl at the supermarket. Six-year old Judy Doe and her mother entered a … Continue reading ...
  4. Prior Accidents Admissible In School Gate Mishap (NY) Friday, June 23, 2017 - In Martin v Our Lady of Wisdom Regional Sch. New York’s  Appellate Division addressed the discretion of a trial court to allowing evidence of prior accidents to establish a party’s negligence. In April 2009, when the plaintiff was an eighth-grade student … Continue reading ...
  5. Security Company Not Liable For New Year’s Eve Elevator Attack (NY) Friday, June 23, 2017 - Excessive drinking by “amateurs” on New Year’s Eve often leads to trouble, and intoxication appeared to be an issue in Coons v. Hotel Gansevoort Group, LLC and Security Services, Inc.,  which involved a plaintiff hotel patron who had travelled to New York … Continue reading ...
  6. NY High Court Takes Common Sense Approach to Additional Insured Coverage Thursday, June 15, 2017 - For years parties have disputed just how far “caused in whole or in part” stretches in the context of coverage afforded an additional insured for the acts or omissions of a named insured. New York’s highest court settled the dispute … Continue reading ...
  7. This and That by Dennis Wade Thursday, June 15, 2017 - In February, I wrote: “When President Trump put forward 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch for the top court, the media, understandably, took sides, for and against the nomination. The only point of agreement was that Judge Gorsuch is a graceful … Continue reading ...
  8. Defense Of “Abusive Acts” Not Covered Under CGL Policy Monday, June 12, 2017 - In a recent New Jersey case regarding allegations of a board of education’s knowledge of a teacher’s inappropriate conduct involving students, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the board’s commercial general liability insurer … Continue reading ...
  9. Terms Used in the Complaint Determine Defense Coverage to the Insured Monday, June 12, 2017 - In Hillcrest Coatings Inc v Colony Ins Co, the Appellative Division recently affirmed the trial court’s order requiring Colony Insurance provide a defense to its insured in an underlying environmental tort action despite the CGL policy’s hazardous materials exclusion. The … Continue reading ...
  10. Pennsylvania Court Finds Stacked UIM Coverage Monday, June 12, 2017 - The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held stacked coverage is permitted under a policy, when the insurer failed to obtain an executed underinsured motorist (UIM) waiver when a new vehicle was added to the insureds’ policy. In Pergolese v. The Standard … Continue reading ...
  11. No Flood Insurance… No Flood Coverage (NJ) Friday, June 9, 2017 - Risk transfer is only available if the transfer occurs before the risk becomes reality. Unfortunately for many, the recognition that there is a risk only comes after reality. Insurance brokers who deal in that risk transfer transaction are uniquely situated … Continue reading ...
  12. To Remove or Not To Remove? Federal Court Beckons … (PA) Thursday, June 8, 2017 - Plaintiffs get to choose litigation venue by filing a complaint in any court that meets jurisdictional rules – State or Federal. While defendants have limited means to select venue, one consideration is whether a matter can be removed to federal … Continue reading ...