Chelus Banner
November 2006 Summing UP
In This Issue
 

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...




Join our mailing list!




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.


Prepared by Kristen M. Walder


phone: 716-852-3600