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

< ![CDATA[Pennsylvania Court Holds Auto Carriers Subject To Bad Faith Statute]]>

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 .

Reality or Wishful Thinking: Is the Admitted Market About to Get Hammered?]]>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 .

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 .

PA federal court in Pittsburgh recently ruled that an auto insurer may be sued for bad faith under Section 8371 (the bad faith statute) where the insured claims that medical benefits were cut off because of an abuse of the independent medical exam process. Roppa v. Geico Indemnity Co. (Case No. 2:10-cv-1428).

In this case the plaintiff was involved in an auto accident in June 2001 and was still receiving treatment for ongoing pain in 2009. The insurer requested an independent medical exam and the report concluded that the plaintiff had reached “maximum medical recovery”. Thus the insurer denied any additional medical treatments.

The plaintiff sued, making a bad faith claim under Section 8371. Defense counsel argued that the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law was the exclusive remedy for bad-faith suits in the context. However the court found that in situations where the dispute is over the “reasonableness and necessity of medical treatment”, Section 1797, which permits an insured to challenge an insurer’s refusal of medical payments, is applicable.

Thanks to Remy Lapidus for her contribution to this post.

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

< ![CDATA[Spiderman, Spiderman -- Does Whatever a Lawyer Can?]]>

 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 .