PA Court Finds No Coverage for Sandusky Claims

Legal issues and case law continue to emerge from the Jerry Sandusky matter.   The Second Mile, a charitable organization run by Sandusky, submitted a claim to its Directors and Officers insurance carrier.   As we previously posted, The Second Mile’s insurer, Federal Insurance Company, has been vigorously opposing Sandusky’s claims that it owes him any coverage for the underlying civil and criminal litigation.

Although the Middle District of Pennsylvania previously denied Federal’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Yvette Kane recently granted Federal’s summary judgment motion.  Judge Kane held that Federal was not obligated to cover Sandusky’s legal fees since Sandusky’s crimes did not take place in his capacity as an employee or executive of the charity, a standard required by the applicable Federal policy.  In fact, Judge Kane explained that the fact that Sandusky met and allegedly abused victims “during the course of activities of Second Mile” does not impart a duty on Federal because Sandusky’s abuse of the children was “personal in nature, and performed in his individual capacity.”

Sandusky opposed the motion and requested additional time for discovery to review Federal’s claims files, its underwriting manuals and other Federal policies that Federal used to exclude sex abuse or molestation from coverage.  Judge Kane denied this request on the basis that subsequent discovery “will not alter the court’s conclusion that the Federal policy does not cover the acts in question.”

As this case proceeds, WCM will continue to provide updates on the court’s decisions.

Thanks to Remy Cahn for her contribution to this post.  If you would like more information please write to

 

NY Sets Up Sandy Mediation Program

Many insurance carriers have spent the past four months sorting through a deluge of claims from homeowners for damage to their homes arising out of Super Storm Sandy.  Due to the incredible volume, many of those claims remain pending.  Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services has created a program whereby policyholders can elect to mediate disputes with their homeowner insurance carriers over claims arising out of Storm Sandy.  New Jersey’s Department of Banking and Insurance also created a similar mediation program for Sandy coverage disputes with a value in excess of $1,000.

The American Arbitration Association will administer New York’s non-binding mediation program.  While New York’s program is voluntary (and free) for policyholders, insurance carriers will be required to not only participate, but to also pay for the costs of the mediation.

According to the new regulation entitled “Mediation,” the program will handle disputed real and personal property claims that arose “between October 26, 2012, and November 15, 2012, in the counties of Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Orange, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk or Westchester.” The program will not handle claims for damage to automobiles.

Although an insurer must act in “good faith” an “insurer that does not alter its original decision on the claim is not, on that basis alone, failing to act in good faith if it provides a reasonable explanation for its action.” But, similarly, the policyholder is not bound by the outcome of the mediation, as the policyholder may still utilize any other legal remedy at his or her disposal, including bringing a civil action.

Of significance, the new regulation requires that the insurance carrier provide notice to the policyholder of this new right to mediation with the AAA.  This is certain to create additional costs for carriers; whether it results in quicker resolution of open claims remains to be seen.

Thanks to Steve Kaye for his contribution to this post.  If you would like more information, please write to Mike Bono.

 

Surfing The Web: Authenticating Out-of-State Legal Documents

Many practitioners puzzle over how to admit in to evidence legal documents from other states.  But, in the digital age, there appears to be a ready answer to this dilemma.  

Judicial notice can be defined as the authority of the court to accept as fact certain matters that are of common knowledge from sources that guarantee accuracy or are official records — without the need for evidence establishing the facts.  But do digital records pulled off an official website qualify for judicial notice? 

Camilla Lowther Management v. Majestic Mills, 653137/11 (Feb. 11), appears to answer that question.  There the special referee took judicial notice of print-outs from a website, purporting to be complaints filed in a California court, which plaintiff was attempting to introduce into evidence.  The plaintiff provided the documents, along with an affirmation detailing the process he used to access and print the documents.  Plaintiff further affirmed that the documents were true and accurate representations of the records appearing on the official California court website. 

The special referee accepted the documents over objection, noting that the documents were a hearsay exception as a public record.  Furthermore, the special referee ruled that the safeguards regarding authenticity under CPLR § 4518(a) and New York Technology Law § 306 were met permitting the pleadings filed in the California court to be taken into evidence by judicial notice despite not being certified.

Special thanks to Johan Obregon for his contribution to this post.   For more information, please contact Dennis Wade at .

WCM Obtains Defense Verdict in Queens, NY Jury Trial.

New York, New York 

Associate Lora H. Gleicher obtained a defense verdict in a Queens County, NY jury trial. In Brazile v. Pioneer Cleaning Maintenance Services, et al., the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell as she was stepping over an eight-inch pile of snow on a sidewalk outside of The Bristal Assisted Living Center. Plaintiff claimed that our client, Executive Snow, negligently plowed snow from the parking lot onto the sidewalk and thereby caused the allegedly hazardous condition that caused the fall.

At trial, we focused on the accuracy of plaintiff’s version of the accident.  We capitalized on plaintiff’s testimony that she did not personally observe a snowplow pushing snow onto the sidewalk where she fell, but rather assumed this must have happened.  We also focused on the fact that plaintiff’s testimony was that the snow pile was eight inches high, when weather records only evidenced a ½ inch of snow on the day in question.

We further argued that that there was no evidence that our client had negligently performed its work.  In this regard, we emphasized that The Bristal Assisted Living Center had signed off on our client’s work as satisfactory after it was completed.

After getting the case, a Queens jury deliberated for a little over an hour.  The jury agreed with our theory of the case and granted us a defense verdict.

One Shipment, Many Claims, Single Occurrence (PA)

The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania recently addressed the issue of whether multiple claims arising from a single shipment of an allegedly defective product constitutes a single “occurrence” for coverage purposes in the case of Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Devon International, Inc.

In 2006, Devon International Inc., an import company, received an order for Chinese drywall from one of its customers, North Pacific Group.  Devon filled this order by purchasing drywall from a Chinese manufacturer.  The purchased drywall was shipped to Devon via one shipment. Once Devon received this shipment, it in turn, delivered the drywall to North Pacific.  By 2009, a number of plaintiffs had sued North Pacific for damages allegedly sustained between 2008 and 2009 in connection with claims that the drywall contained an improper amount of sulfur.  North Pacific requested that Devon defend and indemnify it against these claims.

During the period at issue Devon was insured by Cincinnati Insurance Co. under two separate “occurrence” based commercial general liability policies.  Cincinnati and Devon disagreed over the extent to which Cincinnati was required to provide Devon with a defense and indemnification in litigation stemming from the single shipment of allegedly defective drywall.  The main dispute was whether the underlying claims against Devon arose out of a single occurrence or multiple occurrences. 

In order to determine the number of occurrences, the court applied the “cause” test that looks to the cause of the injury.  Specifically, if all claims stem from one proximate cause and the insured had some control over the cause, then this would constitute a single occurrence.  Applying this test, the Court concluded that the underlying claims all originated from the single shipment of allegedly defective drywall.  Additionally, Devon had some control over the cause of the injuries because it chose to purchase and distribute the defective drywall.  Thus, for coverage purposes, the Court held there was only one “occurrence” and since some plaintiffs claimed damages as early as 2008, the court further ruled that Devon’s 2008-2009 policy was the one triggered since coverage is triggered under an “occurrence” based policy when the negligent act first manifests itself.  

Special thanks to Colleen Hayes for her contributions to this post.  For more information, please contact Nicole Y. Brown at .

Cheryl D. Fuchs Becomes WCM Partner.

WCM is pleased to announce that, effective March 1, 2013, Cheryl D. Fuchs is a Partner. Ms. Fuchs, who is admitted in New York and New Jersey, has been a WCM attorney her entire legal career.  Cheryl’s practice focuses on the defense of N.Y. Labor Law, construction and premises liability cases as well as offering coverage advice across the spectrum of commercial general liability policies. Cheryl takes pride in her zealous advocacy for WCM clients and looks forward to serving your needs in the future.  

If you have any questions, please contact Diana Mauriello, Communications Director at .

Cheryl D. Fuchs Promoted to Partner

New York, New York 

WCM is pleased to announce that, effective March 1, 2013, Cheryl D. Fuchs will be a Partner in WCM’s New York Office.
Ms. Fuchs joined WCM in 2005 after graduating law school.  Her practice focuses on the defense of N.Y. Labor Law, construction and premises liability cases as well as offering coverage across the spectrum of commercial general liability insurance policies.