CURRENT HEADLINES
Brian R. Biggie, an Associate with Our Firm,
Recently Received an Award From Buffalo Mayor,
Byron Brown in Connection with His Spearheading
Buffalo Christmas Wishes.
(full story)
John N. Philipps, Jr. was Elected as an Officer Of
Local Bar
Association
(full story)
Greg Pajak and Brian Biggie Prevailed on Summary
Judgment
Motion Dismissing The Plaintiff’s Labor Law Claims
(full story)
Tom Kawalec and Nick Mineo were Successful In
Dismissing a
Plaintiff’s Case Against an Insurance Company
(full story)
If you would like copies of any of the decisions
mentioned in this section, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Quick Links...
|
|
|
|
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE BY ADJUSTERS
|
|
Pursuant to a recent amendment to Uniform Court
Rule 202.26(e), the Court has discretion to require a
party's insurance carrier to attend pretrial
conferences. In choosing to invoke such a power,
the Court ultimately converts the pretrial conference,
or any other conference however named, into a
settlement conference.
|
|
LEASING LIABILITY: ALIVE AND WELL?
|
|
In Graham v. Dunkley, ---N.Y.S.2d---, 2006
WL 2596327 (N.Y. Sup., 2006), the question of
whether owners of leased or rental vehicles can be
held vicariously liable pursuant to New York Vehicle &
Traffic Law §388 was re-visited. Last year, Congress
enacted the Transportation Equity Act of 2005,
which sought to prevent against imposing liability
vicariously upon owners in the business of leasing or
renting vehicles. However, the Court ruled that a
federal act cannot overturn state vicarious liability
laws, thus rendering the Transportation Equity Act
unconstitutional.
|
|
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT MUST CONTAIN QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT
|
|
In Robinson v. Polasky, ---N.Y.2d---, 2006
WL 2715189 (4th Dept., 2006), a plaintiff's reliance
on a chiropractic affidavit that failed to provide
numeric percentages or a qualitative assessment of
the injury, was found insufficient to raise a triable
issue of fact with regard to the serious injury
threshold pursuant to New York Insurance Law §5102
(d).
|
|
UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE & ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES
|
|
In Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rodina, 821
N.Y.S.2d 325 (4th Dept., 2006), the Court held that
a passenger on an uninsured all-terrain vehicle (ATV)
was not within the scope of uninsured motorist
coverage since an ATV is not a "motor vehicle" as
defined by New York Vehicle and Traffic Law §125.
|
|
EXPOSURE OF UMBRELLA CARRIER PRECIPITATED BY PRIMARY POLICY
|
|
In Cheektowaga Cent. School Dist. v. Burlington
Ins., ---N.Y.S.2d ---, 2006 WL 2789156 (4th
Dept., 2006), an umbrella carrier suffered a $10
million exposure as a result of the contractual
language contained in the excess policy. The
coverage of the excess policy for additional insureds
was dictated by language contained in a primary
policy issued by a different carrier to the named
insured. Specifically, the excess policy provided that
it would afford excess coverage to any insured
covered under the primary policy. Thus, the plaintiffs
were covered as additional insureds under both
policies.
|
|
SAFETY DEVICE ALONE STILL INSUFFICIENT
|
|
In Smith v. Fayetteville-Manlius Cent.
School, ---N.Y.S.2d---, 2006 WL 2789099 (4th
Dept., 2006), the plaintiff was granted recovery
under Labor Law §240(1) when he slipped and fell
from a ladder, sustaining injuries. The Court held
that although the ladder did not collapse or slip, the
ladder did not provide proper protection without the
use of additional devices, and was therefore
insufficient.
|
|
LABOR LAW §§ 240 & 241: HOMEOWNERS' EXCEPTION
|
|
In Uddin v. Three Bros. Const. Corp., ---
N.Y.S.2d ---, 2006 WL 2925179 (2nd Dept., 2006),
the plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a
scaffolding while working on the exterior of a church-
owned building in which the pastor of the church
resided. The Court precluded the plaintiff from
recovering under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241,
reasoning that since church business was not
conducted in the building, the homeowners'
exception applied to the subject building.
|
|
PROOF OF NON-INJURY NEEDED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
|
|
In Talabi v. Diallo, 820 N.Y.S.2d 904 (2nd
Dept., 2006), the Second Department upheld the
lower court's decision to deny the defendant's motion
for summary judgment for failure to prove that the
plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury. Although
the defense presented medical reports which stated
that the plaintiff was not disabled at the time of
examination, the reports failed to address whether
the plaintiff could have been disabled 90 out of the
180 days immediately following the accident.
Therefore, no proof of an injury was required when
no proof of a non-injury was presented.
|
|
TENANTS INDEMNIFYING AND INSURING LANDLORDS?
|
|
In Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Interior Const.
Corp., ---N.E.2d ---, 2006 WL 2970545 (N.Y.,
2006), a landlord entered into a commercial lease
agreement with a tenant, which included provisions
requiring the tenant to both indemnify and name the
landlord as an additional insured. The Court of
Appeals ruled that such provisions are not against
public policy, as the provisions do not exempt the
landlord from liability, but rather serve to shift the
risk between the landlord and tenant.
|
|
|