Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York
March 09, 2020 —
Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaInsurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation?
Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967).
Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Nelson may be contacted at
rgn@sdvlaw.com
New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
November 30, 2020 —
Paul A. Briganti - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020).
The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLPMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Home Prices on the Rise
September 03, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to CoreLogic, in July, housing prices rose 6.9% compared to last year, reported Housing Wire. Furthermore, prices increased by 1.7% compared to June 2015.
“Home sales continued their brisk rebound in July and home prices reflected that, up 6.9% from a year ago,” Frank Nothaft, chief economist for CoreLogic, told Housing Wire. “Over the same period, the National Association of Realtors reported existing sales up 10% and the Census Bureau reported new home sales up 26% in July.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Punitive Damages In Most Wrongful Death Actions
June 05, 2023 —
John Hackett & Jarred Reed - Lewis BrisboisMadison County, Ill. (May 19, 2023) – On May 18, 2023, the Illinois legislature passed House Bill 0219, amending the Illinois Wrongful Death Act to allow for the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The bill will soon be sent to the Governor’s desk for signature. If signed into law, the statutory change will allow heirs of decedents to recover punitive damages in wrongful death actions.
The proposed amendment to the Illinois Wrongful Death Act is underlined below:
Whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages including punitive damages when applicable, in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who or company or corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, including punitive damages when applicable, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death shall have been caused under such circumstances as amount in law to felony. Nothing in this Section affects the applicability of Section 2-1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 2-102 or 2-213 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. Punitive damages are not available in action for healing art malpractice or legal practice or in an action against the State or unit of local government or an employee of a unit of local government in his or her official capacity. The changes made to this Section by this amendatory Act of the 103rd general Assembly apply to actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Hackett, Lewis Brisbois and
Jarred Reed, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hackett may be contacted at John.Hackett@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Reed may be contacted at Jarred.Reed@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Clarifies Standard for Imposing Spoliation Sanctions
October 19, 2020 —
Kean Maynard - The Subrogation StrategistCourts are faced with the difficult task of drawing a line to determine when the failure to preserve evidence becomes culpable enough to permit a judicial remedy. In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Cohen, No. 19-1947, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163681, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) made clear that a party is not entitled to a spoliation sanction without proof that the alleged spoliation was beyond accident or mere negligence. The District Court emphasized that when evidence goes missing or is destroyed, the party seeking a spoliation sanction must show that the alleged spoliation was intentional and that the alleged spoliator acted in “bad faith” before adverse inferences will be provided.
In Cohen, Joshua Cohen (Cohen) rented a residential property to Lugretta Bryant (Bryant). Bryant’s property suffered damages as a result of a kitchen fire. Bryant’s insurer, proceeding as subrogee, hired a fire investigator to determine the cause and origin of the fire. Based on eyewitness testimony and examination of the burn patterns, the fire investigator concluded that the fire started at the General Electric (GE) microwave located in the kitchen. The investigator advised all parties to preserve the microwave so that a joint examination could take place with the property owner and GE present. In the following weeks, the tenant returned to the property to collect belongings and perform some cleaning in anticipation of repairs beginning. Importantly, the tenant claimed the microwave was preserved during these cleaning efforts and remained at the site as instructed. However, in the fall of 2017, one of Cohen’s workers discovered that the microwave was missing and its whereabouts remain unknown.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kean Maynard, White and WilliamsMr. Maynard may be contacted at
maynardk@whiteandwilliams.com
Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR
March 25, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP
Office Location: Columbus, Ohio
Email: tnocar@hahnlaw.com
Website: https://www.hahnlaw.com/professionals/j-thomas-nocar/
Law School: The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration and Mediation
Affiliated ADR organizations: AAA Construction Panel
Geographic area served: Nationwide
Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.
A: I am a former builder turned construction attorney. I spent 26 years building before going to law school. I’ve worn every hat in the industry—D/B business owner, owner’s rep, CM at risk, GC, design/builder, subcontractor, and vendor at some point in my prior career. I chose to adapt these experiences to a law career in 2009 with the focus of practicing construction law. Now I commonly represent commercial builders and developers. AAA added me to the Construction Roster in 2022.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Responding to Ransomware Learning from Colonial Pipeline
June 07, 2021 —
J. Kyle Janecek - Newmeyer DillionRecently, ransomware has taken to the forefront in national news. The most prevalent ransomware attack, the one perpetrated against Colonial Pipeline by the now-defunct "Dark Side" hackers, has served to remind businesses about the risks of ransomware. What happened to Colonial Pipeline? What should businesses do to learn from Colonial Pipeline's response? What should a business avoid?
What happened to Colonial Pipeline?
Colonial Pipeline, a Georgia based operator of fuel pipelines, had its billing software compromised by Dark Side's ransomware attack.1 Following this, Colonial Pipeline took proactive measures to (1) shut down their systems; (2) evaluate the issue; and (3) safely brought systems back on line after ensuring that they were not compromised.
Following this, Colonial Pipeline did eventually pay the 4.4 million dollar ransom demand from Dark Side. What it got in return was a decryption key, as promised, which ended up being slower than Colonial Pipeline's own backups.2 The ultimate result of this event being an initial cost of $4.4 million, in addition to lost profits, additional security costs, reputational costs, and litigation costs as consumers had filed a class-action lawsuit to hold Colonial Pipeline accountable for their perceived lapse in security.3 Further, the fall-out from Colonial Pipeline had prompted additional cybersecurity efforts and changes by the Biden administration, including proposed regulations requiring pipeline companies to inform the Department of Homeland Security of cybersecurity incidents within 12 hours, in addition to keeping a cybersecurity coordinator on staff at all times, and reviews of current security measures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Subcontractors on Washington Public Projects can now get their Retainage Money Sooner
July 26, 2017 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCSubcontractors on public projects in Washington State will no longer be required to wait until final acceptance of the project to get their retainage money. A new statute, which goes into effect on July 23, 2017 and applies only to Washington public projects, will allow subcontractors to get their retainage sooner.
Under prior law, a subcontractor could only get its retainage prior to final acceptance if the general contractor provided a retainage bond to the public owner to secure a release of the general contractor’s retainage and the subcontractor then provided a similar retainage bond to the general contractor in the amount of its own retainage. If the general contractor decided to not provide a retainage bond to the owner, the subcontractor would be forced to wait until final acceptance of the project before it could get paid its retainage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
bhill@ac-lawyers.com
