Author Archives: Robert J. Cosgrove

WCM Obtains Judgment for Clients in Monroe County Property Damage Case.

Posted on by

Associate Peter Cardwell obtained judgments in favor of our clients in the Magisterial District Court of Monroe County in a property damage lawsuit. The case of Baranowski v. The Home Depot and Big E Transportation arose out of allegations by the plaintiff that his driveway was damaged after our clients made a delivery of retaining wall stone.

At a hearing for the case, we argued that the plaintiff presented no evidence supporting his claim that cracks and dents in his driveway were, in fact, caused by our clients. In addition, we pointed to the fact that the plaintiff presented no invoices or quotes proving his alleged damages and needed repairs. We further submitted several photos of the plaintiff’s driveway showing no damage and what appeared to be normal every day wear and tear. We also presented two employees of our clients to testify as to delivery procedures and their investigation into the alleged damage. Ultimately, the court agreed with our position and found in favor of our clients.

For more information about this post, please e-mail Bob Cosgrove.

WCM Obtains Favorable Result in Philadelphia Premises Arbitration.

Posted on by

Philadelphia office associate Peter Cardwell recently obtained a favorable result in a Philadelphia County trip and fall case. In Quarles v. 1800 North 17th St LLC, et. al., the plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell due to a defective sidewalk condition on our client’s property located at 12th and Diamond Streets in North Philadelphia near Temple University. The plaintiff argued that our client negligently maintained its property by allowing a defect to occur. In opposition, we argued that our client could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries because she did not establish that our client had actual or constructive notice of any alleged defect. In addition, we argued that any finding of liability upon our client must be diminished by the fact that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent, that there were numerous inconsistencies in her story, she only suffered soft-tissue injuries which are fully healed, she stopped seeking medical treatment, she had less than $1,000 in lost wages, and she had no outstanding medical bills. The arbitration panel agreed with our assessment and awarded the plaintiff damages that were significantly lower than the plaintiff’s pre-arbitration demand.

For more information about this post, please e-mail Bob Cosgrove.

WCM Partner Speaks to Academy of Experts in London.

Posted on by

On February 2, 2017, WCM Partner Bob Cosgrove spoke to The Academy of Experts at Gray’s Inn, London. His presentation was entitled “Mediation in the Colonies: The New Anchor Imagined by Man.” The seminar covered the increasing importance of mediation in the US and highlighted the purposes of mediation from the US perspective, the structure of US mediations and the practical techniques used by mediators to attempt to resolve disputes.

For more information about this post, please e-mail Bob Cosgrove.

Standing Taking a Seat in Cyber Claims.

Posted on by

The standard defense to a data breach lawsuit has been — there was no actual injury (only the fear of a potential injury), so the plaintiffs lack standing and the case must be dismissed. This defense has historically resulted in the dismissal of data breach lawsuits. But this standing defense is under siege and the Third Circuit might have given it a permanent seat.

In re: Horizon Data Breach Litigation, Horizon, a large health insurer, had two laptops stolen. The laptops contained the PII (or personally identifiable information) of hundreds of thousands of people. A class action lawsuit was filed in which the plaintiffs alleged that because Horizon did not take reasonable steps to secure its data, the plaintiffs were exposed to a potential vulnerability to identity theft. The district court dismissed the action, on the basis of standing, as none of the putative class members could show that the breached information was used to their detriment. The Third Circuit, in a published and precedential decision that was the first of its kind, reversed and found that, even without evidence that the information was used improperly, the plaintiffs had standing to proceed with their claims.

This decision is big news as it comes from a federal circuit court and means that the standing defense is losing its hold as a viable defense. Standing, in short, is taking a seat.

Special thanks to Matt Care for his contribution to this post. For more information, please e-mail Bob Cosgrove.

WCM Obtains No Cause Result in Philadelphia Premises Case.

Posted on by

Partner Robert Cosgrove and associate Erin Connolly recently obtained a finding of “no cause” in a Philadelphia County slip-and-fall case. In Yolanda Jefferson v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on snow and ice while exiting a SEPTA bus outside of the Downtown Philadelphia Marriott located at 12th and Market Streets. The plaintiff argued that Marriott negligently maintained its property by failing to clear the snow/ice, causing the plaintiff to fall and sustain injuries. In opposition, WCM argued that Marriott could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries because the plaintiff could not establish that she fell on Marriott property. WCM further argued that the plaintiff (1) failed to establish any evidence regarding the snow and ice and whether it unreasonably obstructed her travel as required under PA law; (2) failed to establish any evidence of Marriott’s notice of the snow/ice; and (3) failed to establish medical causation to the alleged incident. After hearing the evidence, a verdict in favor of WCM’s client was returned.

For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove.

WCM Associate Elected to Executive Committee of the Young Lawyers Division of the Philadelphia Bar Association

Posted on by

WCM Philadelphi senior associate Hillary N. Ladov recently won a contested election to serve on the Executive Committee of the Young Lawyers Division (YLD) of the Philadelphia Bar Association. The YLD Executive Committee manages and directs the business and activities of the YLD’s more than 2,900 members, and has oversight of 20 committees in the areas of public service, law-related education and service to the legal community. Most recently, the YLD hosted a free expungement clinic that assisted nearly 2,000 applicants with expunging or sealing prior arrests or convictions from their records. Hillary looks forward to continuing the important work of the YLD during her three year term.

The Philadelphia Bar Association, founded in 1802, is the oldest association of lawyers in the United States. Attorneys, judges and politicians alike look to the Philadelphia Bar Association for guidance on controversial legal issues and for an organized meeting ground for professional support and information sharing. Non-lawyers of the Philadelphia community count on, and look to, the Philadelphia Bar Association for general information on how to address their legal issues and where they can go to find additional information and help. With more than 200 years of dedicated service to stand on, the Philadelphia Bar Association is firmly rooted in the Philadelphia community as a steady and reliable bellwether.

WCM Associate Recognized for Her Pro Bono Work.

Posted on by

While attending Rutgers Law, WCM Philadelphia senior associate Hillary N. Ladov saw a need in the community for nonprofit incorporation services — an unserved area. Along with twoclassmates, Hillary founded the Rutgers 501(c)(3) Pro Bono Project. The project connects volunteer law students with community groups that are exploring becoming nonprofits. If it is appropriate for the group to apply for 501(c)(3) status, the project walks the client through the process of incorporating and applying for tax-exempt status. Ladov is in her third year of managing the project, which has assisted over 35 clients under her guidance.

Read more about Hillary’s work with the Rutgers 501(c)(3) Pro Bono Project here.

WCM Awarded Summary Judgment in Philadelphia County Construction Defect Case.

Posted on by

Partner Bob Cosgrove and associate Erin Connolly were awarded summary judgment in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, in a construction defect lawsuit.
The case of Horowski v. Neal F. Rubin, et al. arose out of the new construction of a single family residence in Philadelphia, PA, which the plaintiffs bought and thereafter alleged to have been defective. As a result of the defects, the plaintiffs sued a number of parties, including the general contractor. In turn, the general contractor sued our client, a roofing subcontractor. In its joinder complaint, the general contractor alleged, inter alia, that our client’s roofing work was defective.
After the completion of discovery and depositions, we moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence demonstrating that Aklym’s work was defective. In support of our argument, we highlighted the depositions of the City’s inspector and the plaintiffs’ home inspector as well as the plaintiffs’ expert reports, all of which clearly demonstrated that our client’s work was not defective. Ultimately, the court agreed with our position and dismissed all claims against our client.
For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove .

Going to Need a Bigger Boat? Will Cyber Rules Finally Impact Insurers and Their Vendors (Like Lawyers)?

Posted on by

You might have noticed that cybersecurity issues are a little bit in the news these days. But, we’re not here to talk about Russian spies influencing US presidential elections (although that would be an interesting discussion). Rather, we’re here to talk about boring NY bureaucrats, who have just promulgated (for comment) 23 NYCRR 500, CYBERSECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANIES that is set to go into effect on January 1, 2017 (yes, that’s less than 3 months from now). The proposed regulation is currently in its comment period and, if adopted, will apply to insurers who do more than $5,000,000 in gross revenue and are regulated by the NY Department of Financial Services. It will also likely serve as the blueprint for other states across the country. So what does the regulation propose to do?

Basically, to prevent and mitigate a “cybersecurity event”, i.e. an act or attempt, successful or unsuccessful, to gain unauthorized access to, disrupt or misuse an information system, a regulated entity (like an insurance company) is obligated to ensure that non-public information (like names, dates of birth and social security numbers) are protected. To do that, you must:

(1) develop and implement a cybersecurity program that includes penetration testing, vulnerability assessments, an audit trail system, access privilege limitations, application security, risk assessments, a data retention policy, encryption of nonpublic information and an incident response plan;

(2) develop and implement a cybersecurity policy that includes training and monitoring;

(3) have a chief information security officer (and other personnel); and

(4) have a third-party information security policy that will apply to all third-parties doing business with the insurer.

But, you might ask, what does this really mean for me? It means that you’re going to need a bigger boat (to paraphrase Jaws) if you want to stay ahead of this shark and avoid fines and penalties by the NY Department of Financial Services (and also avoid lawsuits where failure to follow the NY regulations will serve as a blueprint for what you were supposed to do and failed to do). Insurers and their vendors (like attorneys) have in their possession voluminous amounts of information (like medical records, discovery responses and transcripts) that include non-public information. Yet, how often is such information being transmitted by insurers to their attorneys (and from attorneys to their insurers) in unsecured ways? How many insurers are capable of downloading and adding to their files information that is sent by attorneys in secured ways (e.g. via Sharefile — which is our preferred data transmission method at WCM)? I think the answer is “not as many as you would hope.” We here at WCM are happy to help work with you as to what you need to do (and to do what we can for you to help ensure compliance). But, there’s a lot of work to be done and not a lot of time to start doing it.

For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove .

Editors Note — Due to public outcry, implementation of the regulations has been delayed to March 1, 2017. The shark remains in the water, but there is not yet blood.

WCM Obtains “No Cause” in NJ Arbitration.

Posted on by

Partner, Robert Cosgrove and associate, Rachel Freedman secured a “no cause for action” ruling at arbitration in Gloucester County, New Jersey in a slip-and-fall case involving stormwater runoff at a residential home. In Oya Garonski, et al. v. Robert Bockius, et al., the plaintiff fractured her wrist after allegedly slipping and falling on a large accumulation of slippery stormwater that was draining across the defendant-homeowners’ sidewalk after days of significant rainstorms. Per Judge Robert Morgan’s law of the case, under New Jersey water runoff law, the plaintiffs could not recover against the defendants if draining stormwater alone caused her fall, due to the fact that there was no evidence that the defendants took any action to change the delivery of stormwater to the sidewalk. The arbitration panel held that there was no evidence that the defendants had actual or constructive notice that there was dirt, silt, or any other slipper substances hidden under the flowing stormwater that would have caused the plaintiff’s fall, and thus, 0% liability was assessed to the defendants.

For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove .