2019• Vol. 3
Coverage For Mischief And Vandalism
Pennsylvania Superior Court Declares Trial Court Erroneously Exceeded Authority Under Unfair Trade Practice
CM’s Spotlight On Diversity And Inclusion Initiatives
A summary of significant recent developments in the law focusing on substantivet h issues of litigation and featuring analysis and commentary on special pointsAnniversary of interest.
A summary of significant recent developments in the law focusing on substantive issues of litigation and featuring analysis and commentary on special points of interest. 2019 • Vol. 3
FEATURES DAMAGES 7 Pennsylvania Superior Court Declares That 16 CM NEWS The Trial Court Erroneously Exceeded Its Authority Under The Unfair Trade Practice And Consumer 18 Case Notes Protection Law When It Awarded Plaintiffs Quadruple Damages Under The Unfair Trade ARTICLES Practice And Consumer Protection Law COVERAGE by Yesy Sanchez 3 Coverage For Mischief And Vandalism Applies NEGLIGENCE Only To Human Conduct Connecticut Supreme Court Accepts The by Dawn Brehony 9 “Alternative Liability” Doctrine Shifting Burden 5 A Pennsylvania Superior Court Narrows Of Proof In Negligence Action To Defendants The “Business Pursuits” Exclusion When Plaintiff Cannot Prove Which Caused To Injuries That Have A Causal Relationship The Harm But Each One Could Have To An Insured’s Duties At Work by Elizabeth Zakheim by Ryan J. Weber SUBROGATION 11 New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds Subrogation Waiver Provisions REPORT STAFF In AIA Construction Contract EDITOR-IN-CHIEF by Kristian E. Alfonso Robert A. Stern CONTRIBUTING AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FEATURED ATTORNEYS 13 Third Department Addresses Retroactive Application Of Amendment To Workers’ Kristian E. Alfonso Compensation Law Involving Permanent Dawn M. Brehony Partial Disability And Labor Market Attachment Yesy Sanchez by Ian T. Williamson Ryan J. Weber Ian T. Williamson Elizabeth Zakheim Case Notes Attorney Melinda S. Kollross
The CM Report of Recent Decisions is provided as a general information source and is not intended, nor should it be considered, the rendition of legal advice. Please contact us to discuss any particular questions you may have. © 2019 Clausen Miller P.C.
2 www.clausen.com COVERAGE
Coverage For Mischief And Vandalism Applies Only To Human Conduct
by Dawn Brehony
The United States District Court for and malicious mischief.” Id. at *2. the Western District of Pennsylvania American Modern denied the claim held that acts of raccoons in causing on the basis that animal damage to damage to a dwelling cannot be dwellings is not covered in the list considered “vandalism and mischief” of perils and, as such, there is no so as to fall within the coverage coverage for the damage caused by afforded under a specified perils the raccoons. Id. at *3. Thereafter, dwelling policy. Capital Flip brought suit against American Modern for breach of In Capital Flip, LLC v. American contract and bad faith, and American Modern Select Ins. Co., 2:19-cv-180 Modern subsequently filed a motion Dawn M. Brehony (W.D.PA. 2019, Sept. 19, 2019), to dismiss. Id. is a senior associate at Clausen Miller P.C. in rejecting an insured’s argument in the New York office. She is a litigation that raccoon damage fell within a In opposition to American Modern’s attorney, representing domestic and foreign the policy’s coverage for “vandalism motion to dismiss, Capital Flip insurers in complex insurance coverage matters involving all aspects of general and malicious mischief,” Judge argued that the policy is ambiguous liability. She also prepares coverage analyses William A. Stickman agreed with because it does not specifically define and provides counseling on insurance the insurer that raccoons cannot, as “vandalism” or “malicious mischief,” coverage matters involving first- and third- party property and casualty, directors and a matter of law, engage in vandalism and because the terms are undefined, officers and professional liability claims. or perpetrate mischief—much less they may include damage caused by Her experience also includes representing with malice. raccoons and other animals. Id. a pharmaceutical manufacturer in pharmaceutical pricing litigation. [email protected] Plaintiff Capital Flip, LLC (“Capital Rejecting Capital Flip’s argument, Flip”) discovered that raccoons the Court explained that it is had entered a dwelling it owned well-established that a term is in the Pittsburgh area, causing not necessarily ambiguous if an substantial damage to the interior. insurance policy does not include The property was insured by a its specific definition. Id. at *5-6. dwelling policy issued by American The Court looks to both dictionary Modern Select Insurance Company definitions and specific legal usage (“American Modern”). The dwelling of the terms to show that they are policy offered coverage for certain inapplicable to animal behavior. Id. “perils insured against,” including at *6. The Court further looked to the “vandalism and mischief.” Id. at *2. Pennsylvania Crimes Codes, noting that the concepts of vandalism and Capital Flip made a claim under common law malicious mischief the dwelling policy, positing that are intertwined in the offense of the damage caused by the raccoons Criminal Mischief, which requires fell within the peril of “vandalism a human actor. Id. at *7. The Court
www.clausen.com 3 COVERAGE
explained, “animals are subject terms “vandalism” and “malicious only to the laws of nature, not the mischief” to encompass animal Pennsylvania Crimes Code or law behavior holding that, as a matter governing human conduct.” Id. of law, they can only apply to human conduct. Id. at *7-8. The Court further examined persuasive law from other jurisdictions on the In granting American Modern’s issue, explaining that such other motion to dismiss, the District Court courts have declined to interpret the reasoned that raccoons and their companions in the animal kingdom cannot formulate the intent needed to engage in vandalism or malicious misconduct, noting that “animals do not have conscious agency.” Id. at *9. Accordingly, the Court found that based on the plain and unambiguous language of the policy, there was no coverage under the policy for the raccoon damage to the dwelling.
Learning Point: Courts continue to enforce unambiguous policy provisions declining coverage for vandalism and malicious mischief when alleged to have been caused by an animal. All the more reason to keep raccoons out of your house.
4 www.clausen.com COVERAGE
A Pennsylvania Superior Court Narrows The “Business Pursuits” Exclusion To Injuries That Have A Causal Relationship To An Insured’s Duties At Work
by Ryan J. Weber
A Philadelphia Superior Court Nationwide brought this declaratory affirmed the trial court’s order judgment action to seek relief from denying summary judgment to its obligation to defend and/or the insurer, Nationwide Mutual indemnify its insured, Arnold, Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), in a separate lawsuit brought by and found the “business pursuit” CMC Engineering, Inc. (“CMC”) exclusion did not apply to an against Arnold and his attorney, insured whose alleged injurious Jon Pushinsky (“CMC Action”). actions did not arise from his job The CMC Action arose from the Ryan J. Weber at the Pennsylvania Department unsuccessful prosecution of a qui tam is an associate at Clausen Miller P.C. who graduated magna cum laude of Transportation (“PennDOT”). action brought by Arnold on behalf from Ohio University with a BBA in Nationwide Mutual Insurance of the United States against CMC Finance. He received a scholarship Company v. August W. Arnold, et al., and others where Arnold alleged that to New York Law School where he received his J.D. with honors and was 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 692 (July consultants who provided services to a member of both the law review and 11, 2019). The Court declined to PennDOT falsified their credentials the Center for Professional Values. At construe the “business pursuits” to qualify for higher pay rates. CMC Clausen Miller, Ryan focuses on both exclusion so broadly that allegations then brought suit against Arnold coverage and defense work in general and product liability. with any link to an insured’s work and Pushinsky for violations of the [email protected] would preclude coverage. Dragonetti Act, Abuse of Process and Intentional Interference of Nationwide issued an Umbrella Contractual Relations. Liability Policy to the insured, August W. Arnold (“Arnold”). The policy Nationwide filed a motion for provided coverage for a claims defense summary judgment which stated of a suit against the insured resulting the “business pursuits” exclusion in from an occurrence covered by the Arnold’s Umbrella Policy excluded policy. The definition of occurrence coverage for the CMC Action. under the policy included an accident Nationwide argued that the alleged which results in a personal injury actions by the insured which caused caused by the insured during the injury to CMC, namely the qui tam policy period. The policy specifically lawsuit initiated by the insured, arose excluded an occurrence arising out from his employment at PennDOT of the business pursuits or business where the insured had access to property of an insured. the documents and records which
www.clausen.com 5 COVERAGE
formed the basis of the qui tam incorrectly applied the two prong test The Superior Court found that much action. The Common Pleas Court by characterizing the qui tam action like in Ericksen, the actions taken by relied on the two prong test of as Arnold’s business pursuit. The Arnold that form the basis of the continuity and profit motive adopted Court found “it is clear that Arnold’s CMC Complaint occurred outside from the Third Circuit, and found the employment at PennDOT constitutes of his duties and responsibilities at “business exclusion” did not apply a business pursuit, as it is an activity PennDOT. Nationwide, 2019 Pa. and Nationwide had a duty to defend done with the requisite continuity and Super. LEXIS 692 at 5. The Court the insured in the CMC Action. profit motive.” Id. at *5. noted that the CMC Complaint alleged that Arnold’s responsibilities On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior The Superior Court then addressed at PennDOT did not include Court first examined the Complaint the issue of whether Arnold’s lengthy contract interpretation or billing from the CMC Action noting litigation of an allegedly false qui rates. The Court found that even “Nationwide’s duty to defend is tam action arose from his job at though the subject matter of Arnold’s dependent on the allegations set PennDOT. The Court noted that it qui tam action concerned matters forth in the underlying complaint.” is Nationwide’s burden to prove the taking place at PennDOT, it does not Nationwide, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS applicability of the “business pursuits” establish a causal connection between 692 at 3. The Court noted that in the exclusion and that there is not Arnold’s professional duties and CMC Complaint, CMC asserted that extensive case law on the subject. The CMC’s alleged injuries. The Superior Arnold made accusations in the qui Court examined the non-binding Court concluded that Arnold’s tam action that were false, and that case of Aetna Cas. And Sur. Co. v. litigation of an allegedly baseless Arnold’s position with PennDOT did Ericksen, 903 F. Supp. 836 (M.D. qui tam action against CMC did not involve contract interpretation Pa. 1995). In Ericksen, the Court not arise out of his business pursuits. or billing rates which were the crux determined that “an insurer is not The Court determined the “business of the qui tam action. CMC further liable to defend and indemnify an pursuits” exclusion does not apply asserted that the PennDOT officials action wherein an injury is alleged in and Nationwide has a duty to defend who were responsible for these tasks a complaint (1) to have been caused Arnold in the CMC Action. had given CMC approval. by the insured while the insured was engaged in his or her business, as that Learning Point: For the “business The Superior Court next addressed word is defined in the policy, and (2) pursuits” exclusion to apply, the alleged Nationwide’s argument that the trial to have a causal connection to the injury caused by the insured must have court incorrectly applied the two business of the insured." Id. at *4. a causal relationship to the duties and prong “business pursuits” exclusion The Ericksen court found there was responsibilities of his job. It is not test. Nationwide argued that the no causal connection between the enough that the alleged injury has trial court erred by looking at the insured’s statements to a newspaper some nexus to the insured’s work. qui tam action itself as a business regarding her colleague which caused pursuit instead of Arnold’s job at the alleged injury and her duties and PennDOT from which the alleged responsibilities as a professor. injury to CMC arose. The Superior Court agreed that the trial court
6 www.clausen.com Pennsylvania Superior Court Declares DAMAGES That The Trial Court Erroneously Exceeded Its Authority Under The Unfair Trade Practice And Consumer Protection Law When It Awarded Plaintiffs Quadruple Damages Under The Unfair Trade Practice And Consumer Protection Law
by Yesy Sanchez
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania purportedly intended to prevent a recently reversed a ruling on appeal universal life policy from lapsing. that awarded plaintiffs restitution damages in addition to treble In 1994, the Richards purchased a damages under the Unfair Trade $100,000 universal life insurance Practice and Consumer Protection policy intended to avoid a reduction Law (“UTPCPL”). in income should Mr. Richards die before Mrs. Richards. Ameriprise In Richards v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., represented that the annual premiums Yesy Sanchez 2019 PA Super 254 (2019), the would remain at $6,000, or $500 per is an associate in Clausen Miller’s New York office. He focuses his practice on Superior Court held that under the month. The policy was purchased and the defense of personal injury, premises UTPCPL statute the courts were the resulting application and policy liability, and other tort cases. As a granted discretion to award plaintiffs were consistent with these payment litigator, Yesy has argued cases in the Bronx, Queens, Kings, and New York up to three times their actual damages, terms. In 2000, Ameriprise informed County. As a trial attorney, Yesy has in addition to costs and attorney’s fees, the Richards that a $15,053.59 tried cases in Queens and New York and that the trial court effectively prepayment was required, in addition County, as well as the United States awarded quadruple damages when to the $500 monthly premium, in District Court for the Eastern District of New York. it awarded the insured restitution order to avoid a lapse in the policy. [email protected] damages equal to the actual damages, The Richards issued the prepayment in addition to treble damages. As such, on top of their standard monthly the trial court exceeded its authority payment. In 2005, Mr. Richards under the UTPCPL. passed and the $100,000 benefit was paid to Mrs. Richards. James G. Richards and Helen Richards (the “Richards”) claimed In July, 2008, the Richards filed a damages against Ameriprise lawsuit in Allegheny County Court Financial, Inc., Ameriprise Financial of Common Pleas against Ameriprise Services, Inc., Riversource Life alleging negligent and fraudulent Insurance Company, and Thomas A. misrepresentation, breach of Bouchard (collectively “Ameriprise”) fiduciary duty, negligent supervision, in the amount of $15,053.59 plus and violation of the UTPCPL. The interest resulting from a lump sum breach of fiduciary duty and negligent prepayment paid out to Ameriprise, supervision claims were dismissed via
www.clausen.com 7 DAMAGES summary judgment. Following a In support, the Richards cited to the only recovered under the UTPCPL three day non-jury trial, the court Superior Court’s Opinion referencing claim and that their damages were awarded $102,019.32 in liability their award of “$34,006.44 in limited to treble damages. damages, based on the UTPCPL restitution and $102,019.32 in claim only. The award consisted treble damages.” (Emphasis added). The Court held that the trial court of actual damages in the amount The trial court granted the Richards’ exceeded its discretion under the $34,006.44, which represented the motion, and amended the jury UTPCPL by awarding restitution lump sum payment plus interest, verdict and judgment to include the damages plus treble damages. As and treble damages. The total award additional $34,006.44, increasing the Court explained, the UTPCPL by the trial court was $264,691.40 the liability damages to $136,025.76. grants the courts discretion to award which also included $50,000 in Ameriprise appealed the amended plaintiff’s up to three times their punitive damages and $112,672.08 verdict asserting that the trial court actual damages. The courts may in attorney’s fees and costs. erred on remand by awarding the also provide additional relief as they Richards quadruple damages under the deem “necessary or proper,” such as The Richards filed a motion to UTPCPL. Ameriprise also appealed costs and attorney’s fees. The Court correct the amount of the judgment the portion of the amended verdict and noted that the trial court did not and verdict arguing that Ameriprise judgment increasing the attorney’s fees find any liability under the Richards’ failed to include $34,006.44 in awarded to the Richards. other causes of action, and as such, addition to the treble damages their damages were limited to treble of $102,019.32 for a total of In the instant appeal, the Richards damages under the UTPCPL. $136,025.75 in liability damages. argued that restitution and treble The trial court denied Plaintiff’s damages were both allowed under Learning Point: Carriers must follow motion without explanation. An the UTPCPL. In support of their the policy’s terms, including those appeal and cross appeal were filed. argument, the Richards cited jury pertaining to payment, otherwise the On appeal, the Superior Court verdicts awarding restitution, and courts may seek to award the highest reversed the award of punitive treble damages under UTPCPL. damages. While the Richards trial damages, affirmed the remainder of However, Ameriprise successfully court’s attempt to award quadruple the judgment, and remanded the case distinguished these cases by damages under the UTPCPL was to the trial court to recalculate the pointing out that the restitution reversed, the carrier was still required damages. On remand, the Richards award constituted damages under a to pay Plaintiffs a substantial sum once again sought to add $34,006.44 separate non-UTPCPL claim and as compared to Plaintiffs’ actual in restitution damages to the treble was not awarded under the UTPCPL. damages. If prepayment is required damages already awarded in the Ameriprise also asserted that Plaintiffs on a policy then it must be clearly amount $102,019.32. stated in the terms of the policy.
8 www.clausen.com Connecticut Supreme Court Accepts NEGLIGENCE The “Alternative Liability” Doctrine Shifting Burden Of Proof In Negligence Action To Defendants When Plaintiff Cannot Prove Which Caused The Harm But Each One Could Have
by Elizabeth Zakheim
The Connecticut Supreme Court summary judgment to Defendants adopted the alternative liability finding that Plaintiff did not prove doctrine in Connecticut Interlocal causation because it did not know Risk Management Agency v. Jackson. which Defendant actually caused the 2019 Conn. LEXIS 230 [Sep. 1, fire, and refused Plaintiff’s request 2019, No. 19946]. The Connecticut to consider the alternative liability Supreme Court then pulled the doctrine as outside the scope of its matter from the appellate court, as authority; Plaintiff appealed. a case of first impression, after the Elizabeth Zakheim trial court ruled against Plaintiff The alternative liability doctrine, first is an associate in the New York office of Clausen Miller P.C. in the subrogation and granted summary judgment to articulated in California’s Summers department. Before pursuing legal studies, Defendants, saying that adopting v. Tice (33 Cal. 2d 80, 85-87, 199 she had a career in communications new theories of liability was the role P.2d 1) is accepted in some form and advocacy, most recently as Press Officer for the New York City Fire of appellate courts. by most jurisdictions. The Second Department (FDNY). At Brooklyn Restatement of Torts §433 B (3) Law School, Elizabeth was a member of A fire destroyed a privately- explains that alternative liability the Brooklyn Journal of International owned mill and a town-owned applies when two or more engage in Law and interned with the United States Attorney Office for the Eastern aboveground sewage line that was tortious conduct and the plaintiff has District of New York’s Civil Division, in the mill’s basement. Plaintiff been able to prove (by proving duty, Justice Leventhal of New York State’s subrogee Connecticut Interlocal Risk breach, causation and damages) that Second Appellate Division, and United Management Agency (“Plaintiff”) he was harmed by the tortious acts, States Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. in the Eastern District of New York. compensated its insured, the Town but it is unclear which one of the [email protected] of Sommers, for the aboveground tortious actors actually caused the sewage line then commenced a harm. The result is that a court then negligence action. The fire was transfers the burden of proof from caused by the careless discard of the plaintiff to each of the wrongful smoking materials when, in the actors to prove that its actions did middle of the night, three (then) not cause the harm. teenagers (“Defendants”) walked around inside the mill drinking Shifting the burden of proof from and smoking, then flicking their the plaintiff to the defendants using unextinguished cigarette butts on alternative liability doctrine makes it its wooden floors. About 35 minutes an exception, the rationale for which after the Defendants left the mill, at is so that the innocent plaintiff “is not 2:20 a.m., the structure was engulfed deprived of his right to redress.” Id. in flames. The trial court granted at *12-13. The courts state that when
www.clausen.com 9 NEGLIGENCE
the plaintiff was harmed by others’ without any avenue to be made negligence, it is equitable to require the whole. Id. at *16-17. The Court wrongdoers to exculpate themselves. reiterated that a plaintiff must prove that each potential defendant was As an exception created in the named in the action, and each interests of justice, the alternative defendant by his negligence alone liability doctrine places rigorous could have caused the harm, as requirements on the plaintiff before well as the defendants’ duty, breach, the court will shift the burden causation and damages. The plaintiff of proof to the defendants. The does not need to prove that s/he plaintiff must prove that all of the is completely faultless. Once the possible wrongdoers were named burden shifts to the defendants, in as defendants in the action. The Connecticut, if the defendants are plaintiff must prove all four elements unable to prove that they are not in a claim of negligence as against the liable to the plaintiff, then the general defendants (duty, beach, damages apportionment scheme will prevail and causation) establishing that each and each defendant will have to pay defendant acted negligently. And, his proportionate share (the plaintiff the plaintiff must prove that the cannot choose to hold one defendant negligent actions of the wrongdoers liable for the entirety of the damages). (all of whom were named as defendants) were sufficiently similar Learning Point: In Connecticut, and simultaneous. a negligence claim can now move forward and may prove successful In Connecticut Interlocal Risk even if the plaintiff cannot narrow Management Agency v. Jackson, Plaintiff the field of wrongdoers to one proved that the action was brought responsible defendant by shifting against all possible wrongdoers, who the burden of proof to all defendants. were all acting at the same time while However, before the burden of proof in the mill, as well as duty, breach is shifted to the defendants, the and damages, and causation in that plaintiff must first prove: that all the conduct of each Defendant in possible wrongdoers were named as carelessly discarding his cigarette defendants; all the defendants acted butts could have on his own caused largely simultaneously and similarly; the fire. However, Plaintiff could not and all the elements of negligence: prove which specific Defendant’s duty, breach, injury and causation (in negligence ultimately caused the fire. that each defendant’s actions could On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme have caused the harm suffered). Court adopted the alternative liability exception as a “fairer, more sensible alternative” to leaving a Plaintiff
10 www.clausen.com SUBROGATION
New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds Subrogation Waiver Provisions In AIA Construction Contract
by Kristian E. Alfonso
The New Jersey Appellate Division provisions to the issue of waiver of upheld a trial court decision construing subrogation. Section 11.3.5 stated that: the subrogation waiver provision in a form construction contract from If during the Project construction the American Institute of Architects period the Owner insures (“AIA”) against ACE American properties, real or person or Insurance Company’s (“ACE”) right to both, at or adjacent to the site subrogate. See ACE American Insurance by property insurance under Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc., policies separate from those Kristian E. Alfonso Docket No. A-5395-16T4 (App. Div. insuring the Project, or if is an associate in the Subrogation Department. She has prior litigation Apr. 4, 2019). after final payment, property experience representing plaintiffs and insurance is to be provided on defendants in various areas of law, In March, 2012, ACE’s Insured, the completed Project through including employment discrimination, Equinox Development Corporation, a policy or policies other than legal malpractice, eminent domain and personal injury. Kristian has argued contracted with Grace Construction those insuring the Project during before the Second Circuit Court of Management Company, LLC the construction period, the Appeals, and has acted as first and (“Grace”) to building the core and Owner shall waive all rights second chair for jury and bench trials. shell of a new health club. Grace in accordance with the terms She has mediated and negotiated many cases to resolution for her clients, and subcontracted with American of Section 11.3.7 for damages she is trained Mediator. Medical Plumbing, Inc. (“AMP”) caused by fire or other causes [email protected] to perform the plumbing. In April, of loss covered by this separate 2013, after Grace’s work under the property insurance. All separate contract was complete, a water main policies shall provide this waiver broke and flooded the new health of subrogation by endorsement club. ACE paid its Insured’s claim or otherwise. of approximately $1.2 million and sought to subrogate against the Similarly, Section 11.3.7 provided: plumbing subcontractor, AMP. The Owner and Contractor waive The AIA contract at issue in the all rights against . . . each other litigation was a form A201-2007 and any of their subcontractors, General Conditions of the Contract agents and employees, each of for Construction (the “Contract). the other . . . for damages caused The Contract contained two relevant by fire or other causes of loss to
www.clausen.com 11 SUBROGATION
the extent covered by property 11.3.5, ACE argued that it did not limit failed because, “by its terms, insurance obtained pursuant apply because its insurance policy was the subrogation waiver under to this Section 11.3 or other limited to the work being performed section 11.3.7 also continues after property insurance applicable during the construction period. completion of construction if the to the Work, except such rights policy that satisfied 11.3.7 remains as they have to proceeds of such The Appellate Division was in force.” The Court continued, “nor insurance held by the Owner unpersuaded by ACE’s arguments does section 11.3.7 imply a temporal as fiduciary. and affirmed the trial court’s decision. limitation. Where an owner chooses The Appellate Division opined that, to continue a policy that both satisfied The trial court granted AMP’s Motion “ACE’s blanket all-risk policy fell and exceeded the coverage required for Summary Judgment based on the within both categories of coverage by section 11.3, the subrogation waiver of subrogation provisions in subject to section 11.3.7…. Since waiver continues, too.” The Court the Contract. On appeal, ACE argued the all-risk coverage both satisfied concluded that, “together, the two that the subrogation waiver in Section A201’s insurance requirement and provisions ensure a seamless waiver 11.3.7 had a spatial and temporal was ‘applicable to the Work,’ section that shields the contracting parties from limit. Specifically, ACE argued that 11.3.7 waived all claims for damages suit by subrogees.” Section 11.3.7 did not apply to an ‘to the extent covered’ by the policy.” adjacent property and was limited to The Court also noted that, “the Learning Point: New Jersey Courts claims arising before the construction evident purpose of section 11.3.5 is will construe subrogation waivers in was complete. ACE underscored that to preserve the subrogation waiver for AIA contracts to work concurrently most of the damage sustained was to post-completion damages.” to waive subrogation. furnishing rather than the “core and shell” discussed in the Contract, and In addition, the Court held that that the claim arose after the work ACE’s spatial and temporal limit was completed. In terms of Section arguments must fail. The temporal
12 www.clausen.com WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Third Department Addresses Retroactive Application Of Amendment To Workers’ Compensation Law Involving Permanent Partial Disability And Labor Market Attachment
by Ian T. Williamson
In the Matter of the Claim of Theresa employer’s Workers’ Compensation Scott v. Visiting Nurses Home Care, at carrier moved to reopen the claim on al., 2019 NY Slip Op 04259 (App. the issue of labor market attachment, Div., 3d Dept., May 30, 2019), and argued that the claimant’s post- the Third Department was asked classification reduction in wage- to determine whether a claimant earning capacity was due to her could reap the retroactive benefit own failure to pursue job leads. The of a 2017 amendment to Workers’ claim was reopened by the Board Compensation Law §15(3)(w) and at a hearing on December 29, Ian T. Williamson which allowed claimants to receive 2015, a Workers’ Compensation is a senior associate in the New compensation in cases of partial Law Judge found that the claimant York office of Clausen Miller P.C., where his areas of practice include disability without having to prove failed to remain attached to the premises liability, labor law, property they are looking for work at time labor market by failing to search for damage, automobile accidents and of disability classification. In 2016, work, or participate in job training construction. Prior to joining Clausen the Workers’ Compensation Board and placement services. By decision Miller, Ian defended a major utility company in bodily injury cases (the “Board”) had previously found filed on June 27, 2016, the Board relating to construction site, premises that the claimant in question was not agreed, finding that claimant had liability and automobile accidents. entitled to an award as she was not failed to demonstrate any continued He also has extensive experience attached to the labor market and, in attachment to the labor market after representing defendants in New York State asbestos litigation. fact, had voluntarily withdrawn from the issue was raised, and that she had [email protected] it. The Third Department affirmed voluntarily withdrawn from the labor the decision of the Board, which market effective as of her last hearing ruled that claimant was required to date, December 29, 2015. demonstrate an ongoing attachment to the labor market and declined to Effective April, 2017, Workers’ reinstate her award. Compensation Law §15(3)(w) was amended to provide that in certain The claimant, Theresa Scott, had cases of permanent partial disability, an established claim for injuries to “compensation . . . shall be payable her head and neck resulting from a during the continuance of such 1993 accident. She was classified in permanent partial disability, without 1998 as having a permanent partial the necessity for the claimant who disability and received continuing is entitled to benefits at the time awards based upon her reduced of classification to demonstrate wage-earning capacity. In 2014, the ongoing attachment to the labor
www.clausen.com 13 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
market.” Matter of O’Donnell v. Erie application of the amendment, determined, based on then-governing County, 162 A.D.3d 1278, 1280 as there are “different degrees of precedent, that the claimant was (2018), lv granted, 32 N.Y.3d 907 retroactivity.” Becker v. Huss Co., 43 required to but had not remained (2018). This amendment serves to N.Y.2d 527, 540 (1978). So, the attached to the labor market and had relieve certain permanent partial amendment can apply in some voluntarily withdrawn, suspending disability claimants from the need to cases of permanent partial disability, her award until she demonstrated demonstrate a continued attachment relieving claimants of the obligation such attachment. Of significant to the labor market, as previously to show market attachment. In importance, the Third Department required, in order to be entitled to other cases, depending on the noted that the Governor’s Bill Jacket wage replacement benefits. Matter of circumstances, it may not work in for the legislation contained a letter Zamora v. New York Neurologic Assoc., claimants’ favor. from the Board’s counsel summarizing 19 N.Y.3d 186, 191 (2012). the various amendments to the To put it in clearer perspective, in Workers’ Compensation Law that were The Third Department stated that Matter of O’Donnell, the injured included. On the issue of retroactivity, because the proper meaning and claimant retired from her position counsel’s letter states that “[t]his application of the added statutory following an injury and was classified amendment . . . affects previously phrase—“entitled to benefits at the as having a permanent partial disability. decided cases in which there has time of classification”—is ambiguous, Her retirement was deemed to have not been a finding that the claimant and the legislation does not contain been an involuntary withdrawal from had voluntarily removed him[self] a clear retroactivity provision, it is the labor market. At the time the 2017 or herself from the labor market necessary to examine the legislative amendment went into effect, there at the time of classification. Here, history to ascertain the legislative had been no final Board determination there had been a Board finding of intent. Matter of Shannon, 25 regarding her attachment to the voluntary withdrawal and, therefore, N.Y.3d 345, 351 (2015). The Third labor market. The Board ultimately retroactivity was not extended. Department further stated that the applied the 2017 amendment to effective date of the legislation is a the claimant’s pending case and Learning Point: It is interesting to separate question from whether the concluded that she was not required note that most recently, the Third statute should apply to claims and to demonstrate an attachment to the Department upheld the holding of rights then in existence. Majewski v. labor market. In Matter of O’Donnell, Matter of Scott, in the case of Matter Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., the Third Department found that “the of Pryer v. Incorporated Village of 91 N.Y.2d 577, 583 (1998). amendment was clearly intended to Hempstead (2019 NY Slip Op 06561, apply to claimants, such as O’Donnell, September 12, 2019), reiterating the Although the amendment does not who have involuntarily withdrawn Court’s position that claimants will specifically state that it applies to from the labor market and were not be allowed to benefit from the claimants classified as permanently entitled to receive wage replacement 2017 amendment absent a bona fide partially disabled prior to its effective benefits having been classified with a showing that s/he remains attached date, the legislative history supports permanent partial disability.” to the labor market. this interpretation and deserves deference. Matter of O’Donnell The Third Department noted that in v. Erie County, 162 A.D.3d 1280. December, 2016, four (4) months The Court recognized that there is before the 2017 amendment went still an implicit limit to retroactive into effect—the Board had finally
14 www.clausen.com is proud to announce the opening of additional office locations in Florida
Tampa 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 600 & Orlando 618 East South Street, Suite 500 Further expanding Clausen Miller’s presence in the Southeast and its ability to serve its clients in this region www.clausen.com Visit us at clausen.com 15 CM NEWS
Spotlight On Clausen Miller’s Diversity And Inclusion Initiatives
our senior leaders prioritize diversity. When companies encourage diversity and inclusion, fewer employees think about leaving and employee happiness increases. The largest data sets on the state of women in the workplace absolutely support this conclusion.
As our first Chief Diversity Officer, I am looking forward to implementing some concrete programs and measures. For example, we are implementing training on implicit bias, #MeToo issues, and #PayMeToo issues. We will also work directly with our Attorney Recruitment and Retention Committee, Mentorship Committee and Practice Group Chairs to improve mentorship and sponsor opportunities for diverse attorneys throughout our firm. I also envision that we will make commitment to diversity and inclusiveness part of our annual performance evaluation of all partners and all attorneys. Clausen Miller’s Board of Directors and Director Paige M. Neel. Paige recently is doubling down on its commitment sat down with CM Report staff to speak CM Report: What is the largest to advance the diversity and inclusion about her mission of expanding Clausen obstacle that law firms currently face values of the firm. The Board recently Miller’s diversity and inclusion efforts. when it comes to hiring and retaining announced the goal that by 2021, qualified diversity candidates? CM will enjoy a deserved national CM Report: Paige, tell us about reputation as a firm devoted to diversity some of the advances in diversity and Paige Neel: People are the greatest assets and inclusion, earned by recognized inclusion at Clausen Miller. of any law firm. We don’t sell products; improvements in every rank and we sell the talents and expertise of our category of the firm. While CM has Paige Neel: Clausen is fully committed people. So it is absolutely critical for long been committed, and significant to recruit, hire, develop, retain, and any law firm to have attorneys that are progress has been made, CM is striving promote the best attorneys and staff diverse in thought, experience, race, to move the needle more. at all levels—regardless of race, color, and other differentiators to insure we ethnicity, gender, religion, age, LGBTQ can provide excellent solutions to our In furtherance of these goals, the Board identification, marital status, disability, clients’ complex problems. To stay recently named Clausen Miller’s first military background or viewpoint. competitive, Clausen Miller places Chief Diversity Officer, Shareholder Here at Clausen, we are lucky because significant focus on the retention aspect
16 www.clausen.com CM NEWS and to foster an environment where be it in court, in a deposition, in a in them and advocated on their all of our people thrive. This means meeting with expert witnesses, as well as behalf. Here at Clausen, we have a providing programs, benefits, and informal give-and-take discussions with long-standing mentorship program policies that support an inclusive work many different Clausen Miller attorneys for all new associates who join us, and force in their diverse and ever-changing across our numerous practice groups. we make sure that we connect more needs. One of my goals as Clausen’s Our goal is for law students from senior attorneys with new attorneys to first Chief Diversity Officer is to diverse backgrounds to experience first- provide sound advice. Although true invest significant time and resources hand what life in a busy litigation firm mentorship and sponsor relationships on inclusion areas of gender, race and looks like and to decide for themselves tend to happen naturally, research shows ethnicity, and sexual orientation. We whether they can see their future here us that some individuals are less likely are rethinking the definition of work— with Clausen Miller. to take advantage of informal networks the way it gets done, when, where, and and would benefit from a structured by whom. CM Report: How important are program. That’s why at Clausen we offer mentors to helping advance one’s a variety of opportunities by imbedding CM Report: What new diversity legal career, and does Clausen them into existing mentorship and initiatives are you planning in the Miller maintain any mentorship development programs. In this way, near future? programs, especially for diverse we can connect high-potential young candidates or lawyers? lawyers with senior leaders to provide Paige Neel: We are continuing to them with mentorship and sponsorship actively recruit diverse attorneys, and Paige Neel: We can never and to show their protégés how to own I am excited about our latest outreach underestimate the value of mentors and drive their careers, as well as to to diverse law school communities with and sponsors in helping navigate illuminate the nuances of navigating Clausen’s one-day internship program our legal careers. Ask any leader how the legal profession. that we will be kicking off later this year. they got where they are today, and Our program will allow law students most will tell you that they didn’t do to observe and experience a “day in it alone. Most can point to a mentor the life” of a Clausen Miller attorney, or sponsor who took a vested interest
PARTNER SERENA SKALA TO PRESENT ON WORK/LIFE BALANCE AT WOMEN IN LEGAL AND LEADERSHIP SUMMIT IN NYC
CM partner Serena Skala will speak personal growth can be challenging, themselves. This conference will provide at the Women in Legal and Corporate and Serena will offer concrete ideas networking and learning opportunities Leadership Summit, taking place on to help achieve this essential balance. on topics including mentorship, gender November 21, 2019, in NYC (final Serena’s panel will also discuss equity and career management. location to be announced shortly). workplace and corporate policies Serena’s presentation explores the and practices that will help employees Serena is a partner in our New York importance of achieving a Work/Life maintain that balance. City office. She focuses on litigation Balance for women lawyers. in the fields of professional liability, The Women in Law & Corporate premises liability and construction Serena and her fellow presenters will Leadership Summit explores the career site litigation at both the state and discuss how to build and manage a obstacles, risks and rewards on the federal levels. Please contact Serena high level career while maintaining path to a fulfilling and productive ([email protected]) to inquire a balance with their personal lives career for women lawyers including about complimentary passes to attend and family responsibilities. Juggling ways to best manage their careers and this event. a dynamic practice and dynamic effective ways for women to promote www.clausen.com 17 CASE NOTES
APPELLATE (“IME”) at the insurer’s request. EMPLOYMENT Held: IME was necessary for the PRACTICE insurer to properly evaluate the DISCRIMINATION claim for benefits. The insurer was INADEQUATE RECORD prejudiced by defendant’s failure DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE CREATES PRESUMPTION to submit to an IME in that it was IS A LEGITIMATE COURT ACTED CORRECTLY unable to properly evaluate the claim NONDISCRIMINATORY and determine the causal relation of JUSTIFICATION Peter White v. Latimer Point Condo. Assoc., treatment and care expenses. FOR DISCHARGE Inc. et. al., AC 41345 (Conn. App.) CIVIL PROCEDURE Ulyses Alvarez v. City of Middletown, Plaintiff condo owner sought a AC 41478 (Conn. App.) permanent injunction against the PRIOR SMALL CLAIMS condo association and a neighboring Plaintiff, a Hispanic American citizen ACTION BARS SHODDY condo unit, to prevent them from of Puerto Rican descent, brought WORKMANSHIP CLAIM rebuilding the unit after the original an employment discrimination unit sustained storm damage. The claim, alleging defendant had Platon v. Linden-Marshall Contracting rebuilding would allegedly have discriminated against him on the Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 07015, ¶ 1 reduced plaintiff’s primary water basis of national origin and race. (N.Y. App. Div 1st Dep’t) view. Held: Plaintiff did nothing to Held: Summary judgment affirmed. ensure that the appellate court would Defendant presented evidence that it Plaintiff sued defendant for have a record on appeal that included had similarly discharged a Caucasian unsatisfactory bathroom renovation the factual findings and legal bases officer during his probationary period work. Plaintiff had previously for the trial court’s decision. The brought a small claims action due to a failure to meet the police appellate court, therefore, presumed against defendant. Held: Plaintiff’s department’s expectations and to properly that the trial court undertook a negligence, fraudulent inducement, document reports in accordance with proper analysis of the law. and General Business Law claims department requirements. are all barred by the doctrine of res AUTO INSURANCE judicata. It does not matter that the EVIDENCE small claims court has jurisdictional FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH limits on the amount of damages that PRIOR MISCONDUCT may be sought, as it was plaintiff’s COOPERATION CLAUSE EVIDENCE HELD ADMISSIBLE PRESUMED DETRIMENTAL choice to proceed in that court first. TO INSURER’S INTERESTS David Blinn v. Desh Sindwani, AC 40985 (Conn. App.) Amica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Michelle Levine, AC 40999 (Conn. App.) Plaintiff sought damages for negligence arising from a 2012 Insurer sought a declaratory automobile accident. During trial, judgment to determine the rights the court allowed treatment records of the parties related to a provision referencing plaintiff’s prior conviction in an automobile insurance policy it for operating a motor vehicle while had issued to the defendant, which under the influence and a citation required the defendant to undergo for a 2014 car accident. Held: an independent medical examination The probative value of the prior
18 www.clausen.com CASE NOTES misconduct evidence outweighed its CLIENT LOSES the property by adding utility to home prejudicial effect as it tended to show MALPRACTICE LAWSUIT operation. Owner filed suit more than that plaintiff’s treatment did not result WHEN HE WAS FULLY ten years after the issuance of certificate from the underlying motor vehicle AWARE OF AND AGREED TO of occupancy, possession of property, accident but from the prior misconduct. CONTRACT TERMS and completion of work. Owner failed to create issue of fact as to whether LEGAL Jenkins v. Bakst, 2019 Mass. App. work continued after occupancy. LEXIS 91 (Mass. App.) MALPRACTICE FRAUD CLAIM SUBJECT Plaintiff alleged his attorney was TO MEDICAL CLAIM HYPOTHETICAL RESULT negligent in negotiating a stock STATUTE OF REPOSE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE buy-back clause in his employment PROXIMATE CAUSE agreement; that he advised his Freeman v. Durrani, 2019 Ohio App. attorney he wanted his stock’s value LEXIS 3732 (Ohio App.) measured based on employer annual Edwards v. Moore, 2019 Ga. App. revenues; that the attorney did not LEXIS 412 (Ga. App.) Plaintiff sought to cast medical follow instructions; and that he claim as fraud, alleging physician received inadequate payment when Plaintiff’s former attorney drafted a committed fraud by recommending Held: settlement agreement whereby her subsequently terminated. unnecessary surgery and failing to husband paid alimony while the Plaintiff, an experienced business disclose the risks of surgery. Court two were legally separated. Plaintiff person, read the employment dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit as barred changed attorneys and a divorce was agreement before he signed it and under four-year statute of repose granted. Plaintiff’s former husband accepted the terms. He was not related to medical claims. Held: stopped paying alimony as they misled nor did his attorney conceal Affirmed. Clever pleading cannot were no longer legally separated. details. Further held: Plaintiff cannot transform a medical claim into a Plaintiff sued her divorce attorneys, establish causation because he could claim of fraud and claims that arise arguing they should have asserted a not show that it was more likely than out of medical care and treatment counterclaim for alimony and sought not that his employer would have are considered medical claims for to reform the settlement agreement accepted his proposed formula. the purpose of the statute of repose. to include post-divorce alimony. Held: Plaintiff cannot prove the LIMITATIONS OF MUNICIPAL LAW AND attorneys proximately caused her alimony to cease. There is no evidence ACTIONS CORPORATIONS that plaintiff would have succeeded on such a counterclaim nor is there ATTIC PULL-DOWN LADDER CITY AND FIREMAN IMMUNE evidence of a damages amount. AN IMPROVEMENT FOR FROM LIABILITY FOR STATUTE OF REPOSE VEHICLE ACCIDENT PURPOSES Pitzer v. City of Blue Ash, 2019 Ohio Harrell v. Ryland Grp., 2019 Fla App. App. LEXIS 2994 (Ohio App.) LEXIS 12372 (Fla. App.) Woman’s car struck firetruck that Homeowner was injured when attic was on way to emergency. Held: pull-down ladder collapsed. Held: City is immune from liability unless Owner’s claim failed under the 10-year firefighter responding to emergency is statute of repose. The ladder improved guilty of willful or wanton misconduct. www.clausen.com 19 CASE NOTES
Wantonness requires a lack of any NO CREDIBILITY PROOF OF BUILDING CODE care for other drivers. Firefighter DETERMINATION IN DECIDING VIOLATION NOT ENOUGH was exercising care. Further held: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Firefighter not personally liable for recklessness, which requires a Isha Sen v. Kostas Tsiongas, AC 40963 Hartnett v. Zuchowski, 2019 NY Slip conscious disregard or indifference to (Conn. App.) Op 06934 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t) a known or obvious risk. He activated engine lights, used horn, and almost Plaintiff sought damages from the Plaintiff sought summary judgment stopped before entering intersection. landlord and owner of her apartment based on an architect expert’s opinion Technical violation of departmental for negligence in connection that the staircase on which plaintiff policy on stopping did not contribute with a dog bite she received in fell violated several sections of the to accident. the building’s common stairway. applicable building code. Held: In The landlord obtained summary New York, evidence of building judgment on the ground that he code violations constitutes only NEGLIGENCE did not have any knowledge of some evidence of negligence rather the alleged vicious propensities of than negligence per se. The evidence GARDEN-VARIETY the dog. Plaintiff appealed. Held: thus failed to carry plaintiff’s initial EMPLOYEE-RELATED Reversed. Contradictory accounts of prima facie burden regardless of what CLAIMS INSUFFICIENT the dog’s behavior thwarted summary evidence defendant had in opposition. TO SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR judgment. For example, plaintiff had claimed that the dog acted viciously INTENTIONAL INFLICTION PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION towards her when she approached OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHOWS CASE RESTS the building and had scratched her ON SPECULATION husband and bit the son of the dog’s Nailia Vodovskaia v. Hartford owner prior to the incident. Headache Ctr., LLC, et. al., AC 41049 Phillips v. LSS Leasing Ltd. Liab. Co., (Conn. App.) 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7120 DUTY TO SUPERVISED (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t) Plaintiff physician sought damages CHILD ON ZIP LINE MUST from a medical practice and its sole BE VIEWED FROM Plaintiff fell in the lobby of defendant’s member for intentional infliction of ADULT’S PERSPECTIVE building and sued. Plaintiff surmised emotional distress in connection with at her deposition that she tripped and fell on a defective part of a runner the termination of her employment. LaForce v. Dyckman, 2019 Mass. App. LEXIS 116 (Mass. App.) mat that was located in the lobby Defendants obtained summary of the defendant’s building. Held: judgment and plaintiff appealed. Father allowed six-year old to ride Since plaintiff, who traversed this Held: Affirmed. Plaintiff did not backyard zip line lacking seat. Held: The lobby practically every work day, allege any racial, ethnic or similar duty to a supervised child and an adult testified that she did not see the type of slurs or animus. Allegations are identical. Whether danger is open- alleged defect either before or after of garden-variety employee-related and-obvious to the child must be viewed she fell, her testimony was based on claims do not constitute extreme and from an adult’s perspective. Further speculation, entitling defendant to outrageous behavior. Further held: held: There was no duty to remedy the summary judgment. Defendants did not owe plaintiff a zip line, which was not unreasonably duty to ensure she was given time off high or improperly constructed. from work to seek medical treatment when not feeling well.
20 www.clausen.com CASE NOTES
PLAINTIFF DEFEATED BY NO-DUTY WINTER RULE WORKERS’ INFORMAL JUDICIAL PROTECTS STORE OWNER ADMISSION THAT DEFENDANTS FROM LIABILITY IN PARKING COMPENSATION WERE NOT AT FAULT LOT SLIP AND FALL STANDARD OF Rosales v. Rivera, 2019 NY Slip Op Bakies v. RSM Maint., Inc., 2019 JUDICIAL REVIEW 07105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t) Ohio App. LEXIS 3405 (Ohio App.) Thomas McGinty v. Stamford Police Plaintiff was injured in a vehicular Patron slipped on black ice while Dept., et. al., AC 41943 (Conn. App.) accident and sued multiple defendants. exiting car in store owner’s parking While making arguments against some lot. Held: the No-duty winter rule Plaintiff, a police officer, had retired in of the defendants, plaintiff asserted they assumes that everyone will appreciate 2011 with a service related disability were the sole proximate cause of the and protect themselves from the pension. In April 2009, he had been Held: risks of natural accumulations of accident. This informal admission diagnosed with coronary artery that some defendants were the sole ice and snow. The formation of disease and hypertension and filed cause of the accident entitled the other black ice occurred naturally. By a claim for benefits. The Workers’ defendants to summary judgment. contracting with a plowing service, owner did not assume a duty of Compensation Commissioner care as to natural accumulations. determined his claim for benefits Moreover, patron failed to provide was compensable under the Heart expert testimony as to meaning of and Hypertension Act. The Workers’ contract requirements. Owner did not Compensation Review Board have superior knowledge of situation, affirmed that decision and defendants nor was there evidence that the black appealed. Held: Affirmed. Plaintiff’s ice concealed another danger. testimony from two cardiologists was credible and persuasive. The role of the court was not to retry the facts, but to determine whether the Commissioner’s award could be sustained in view of the factual record.
www.clausen.com 21 Clausen Miller Presents Client-Site Seminars For CLE and/or CE Credit As part of our commitment to impeccable client service, we are proud to provide client work-site presentations for Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) and/or Continuing Education (“CE”) credit. You will find available courses listed below. Please view the complete list of individual course descriptions at www.clausen.com/education/ for information regarding the state specific CE credit hours as well as course and instructor details.
Additional Insured Targeted Tender Issues Developments In Insurance For The Claims And Other Emerging Trends Affecting Professional: (1) The New Restatement Strategic Claims Determinations Of The Law Of Liability Insurance; (2) Protecting Insureds In The Transportation Additional Insured Targeted Tender Issues Industry From The Dangers Of Plaintiffs’ And Other Legal Considerations Affecting Reptile Theory; (3) Coverage Issues Regarding Strategic Coverage And Litigation Determination “Rip And Tear” Or “Get To” Costs In Construction Defect Claims; Alternatives To Litigation: (4) When A Collapse Claim Involves Negotiation And Mediation More Than “Collapse”; And (5) The Law An Ethical Obligation Or Simply An Option?: Of Golf: A Short Course Choose Your Own Adventure When Adjusting A First Party Property Claim Developments In Property Insurance Coverage Law An Insider’s Guide To New York Practice Jumping Over The Evidentiary Hurdles Appellate And Trial Protocols For Resolving To Victory Coverage, Casualty And Recovery Issues Facing The Insurance Claims Professional Miscellaneous Issues Of Interest Relating To Property Insurance Assignments Of Benefits In Florida: How Did We Get Here? Negotiation: Methods For Determining Settlement Values And Strategies Attorney Fees And Costs In Florida: For Acquiring Movement Can We Avoid A Stick Up? Premises Liability/Liquor Liability And Avoiding Trial Pitfalls And Maximizing Security/Architects And Engineers Success On Appeal Construction And Environmental Claims
Breaking Bad Faith, Failure To Settle Recent Trends In Bad Faith And E-Discovery Within Policy Limits, And Strategy Issues And Protocols To Resolve Same For The Claims Professional For The Claims Professional
Builders Risk Insurance: Case Law, Strategies For Increasing The Settlement Offer Exclusions, Triggers And Indemnification Subrogation: Initial Recognition, Roadblocks CALIFORNIA SETS NEW MAXIMUM And Strategies CONTAMINANT LEVEL ON HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM IN DRINKING WATER: The Latest Coverage Battles In Construction The Background, Remediation, Litigation And Defect And Faulty Workmanship Claims Related Claims-Handling And Coverage Issues Tips And Strategies For Claims Professionals: Coverage And Trial/Appellate Litigation— The Affordable Care Act, Unilateral Settlement Strategies Affecting Coverage Determinations Agreements, And Ethics In Claims Handling
Coverage Summer School: “Hot” Insurance Tips And Strategies For The Claims Topics For “Cool” Claims Handling Professional: What You Need To Know About Medicare Reporting, The Affordable Care Act, Developments In Insurance For The Claims Targeted Tenders, And Unilateral Settlement Professional: Time Limit Settlement Demands; Agreements Insurance And Legal Issues Related To Drones; And Ensuing Losses Under First Party Property Winning Through Motions And Setting The Insurance Policies Stage If All Else Fails
If you are interested in a course or topic not currently listed in our available courses, please contact the Clausen Miller Marketing Department at [email protected] 22 www.clausen.com is proud to announce the opening of an additional office location
San Francisco, California 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 Further expanding Clausen Miller’s presence in the West and its ability to serve its clients in the Bay Area Visit us at clausen.com www.clausen.com 23 10 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 855-1010 Clausen Miller Facsimile: (312) 606-7777 28 Liberty Street Speakers Bureau 39th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 805-3900 Clausen Miller Offers Facsimile: (212) 805-3939 On-Site Presentations 17901 Von Karman Avenue Suite 650 Irvine, CA 92614 Addressing Your Business Needs Telephone: (949) 260-3100 Facsimile: (949) 260-3190 As part of Clausen Miller’s commitment 100 Campus Drive to impeccable client service, our Suite 112 Florham Park, NJ 07932 attorneys are offering to share their Telephone: (973) 410-4130 Facsimile: (973) 410-4169 legal expertise by providing a client work-site presentation regarding legal 200 Commerce Square Michigan City, IN 46360 issues that affect your business practice. Telephone: (219) 262-6106 If you are interested in having one 4650 West Spencer Street of our attorneys create a custom Appleton, WI 54914 Telephone: (920) 560-4658 presentation targeting the specific needs
68 Southfield Avenue of your department, please contact our 2 Stamford Landing Suite 100 Stamford, CT 06902 Marketing Department: Telephone: (203) 921-0303
4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Stephanie Cebuhar Suite 600 Clausen Miller P.C. Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 509-2578 10 South LaSalle Street 100 Pine Street Chicago, IL 60603 Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 (312) 855-1010 Telephone: (415) 745-3598
618 East South Street [email protected] Suite 500 clausen.com Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (813) 509-2578
Clausen Miller LLP 34 Lime Street London EC3M 7AT U.K. Telephone: 44.20.7645.7970 Facsimile: 44.20.7645.7971
Clausen Miller International:
Grenier Avocats Studio Legale Corapi van Cutsem-Wittamer-Marnef & Partners 9, rue de l’Echelle Via Flaminia, 318 Avenue Louise 235 75001 Paris, France 00196-Roma, Italy B-1050 Brussels, Belgium Telephone: 33.1.40.20.94.00 Telephone: 39.06.32.18.563 Telephone: 32.2.543.02.00 Facsimile: 33.1.40.20.98.00 Facsimile: 39.06.32.00.992 Facsimile: 32.2.538.13.78