Experience Archive

In an important ruling for commercial property owners, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Alejandra Padilla v. Young II An, (A-43-22) addressed the owners' obligations regarding the maintenance of public sidewalks and answered the question: Do owners of vacant commercial lots have a duty to maintain adjacent public sidewalks in reasonably good condition?

In a ruling that has significant implications for the construction industry, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Lessard v. R.C. Havens & Sons, Inc., recently clarified the scope of coverage under commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies concerning construction defects. For the first time, the court determined that construction defects, standing alone, do not qualify as "property damage" under these policies. This decision that could reshape the landscape of liability for contractors and homeowners alike, potentially altering how parties approach risk management, contract negotiations, and insurance underwriting. As the industry grapples with the ramifications of this ruling, stakeholders may need to reconsider their legal strategies and the allocation of responsibility in construction projects. This landmark decision not only shifts the understanding of what constitutes insurable damage, but also sets a precedent that could influence future legal interpretations and coverage disputes across the nation.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB) is pleased to announce that a Santa Monica judge returned a favorable verdict for our client in a challenging business litigation case. Trial attorneys Andreea Custurea and Greg Amundson expertly navigated a multitude of claims brought forth by the plaintiffs, who alleged breaches of contract, fraud, and other serious offenses. WSHB successfully defended against claims exceeding $2 million with the court awarding the plaintiff less than $50,000. In addition, as the plaintiff failed to surpass the statutory offer to compromise and are now responsible for all expert fees and costs.

In a new arbitration-related ruling, a California court in the case of Cook v. University of Southern California, found that an arbitration agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate all claims, even those not arising from the employment relationship, for an infinite amount of time, was unconscionable and entirely unenforceable. The decision arose from a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged discrimination and harassment by her employer and two co-workers. Despite the defendants' collective motion to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by the plaintiff as a condition of employment, the court denied the motion, citing the purportedly pervasive unconscionability of the agreement. The defendants appealed the decision.

In a remarkable demonstration of legal acumen, Wood Smith Henning & Berman successfully resolved a complex security negligence case through a strategic motion for summary judgment. This decisive victory, spearheaded by trial attorneys Lauren Kane and Frances O’Meara, exemplifies the effectiveness of well-crafted legal motions in bringing clarity and finality to challenging cases.

The "Transparency and Limitations on Foreign Third-Party Litigation Funding" recently went into effect on August 1, 2024. This legislation is designed to regulate the involvement of foreign and third-party entities in litigation funding to increase transparency and protect the integrity of the legal process. This article outlines some provisions and implications of the law which is comprised of Louisiana R.S. 9:3580.1 through R.S. 9:3580.7, and R.S. 9:3580.10 through 3580.12.

In a significant ruling underscoring the boundaries of liability in workplace injuries involving independent contractors, the California Court of Appeal recently addressed a case stemming from an accident at the San Francisco International Airport. In Bowen v. Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc., A166793 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC17561849), the court found that the retained control exception to the Privette doctrine was not sufficiently proven by the plaintiff.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a significant legal victory led by partner Kate Adams, who successfully prevailed on a Motion for Summary Judgment concerning third-party coverage under a policy issued to a town in Connecticut. This landmark decision addressed critical aspects of CGL Coverage, Public Entity Management Liability Coverage, and Public Entity Employment Related Practices Coverage.

In a recent legal battle before the Connecticut Supreme Court, a plaintiff challenged her employer's handling of a hostile work environment claim after facing racially discriminatory statements from a coordinator in her department. O'Reggio v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities et al., highlights the complexities of defining supervisory roles and the implications for vicarious liability in discrimination cases.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to report yet another successful jury trial, this time led by trial lawyers Jade Tran and Vanessa Herzog. Together, Tran and Herzog successfully defended a national trucking company and its driver in a challenging jury trial in the San Bernardino Superior Court. This intricate case, which stemmed from a significant accident on the northbound I-15, culminated in the jury determining that the plaintiff driver bore 95% of the liability for the collision.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman has achieved a notable legal victory in Michigan in a complex automobile accident case. The case involved a vehicle rented by a leading delivery company from our client, which resulted in an accident with the plaintiff. Partner Michael Spinazzola showcased his expertise in the handling of this matter.

WSHB New York is celebrating yet another win in a complex case involving New York’s contentious Labor Law. This win underscores the firm's strategic ability in setting up cases for success through powerful law in motion practice.

In a decisive ruling, a Nevada court has granted Wood Smith Henning & Berman's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case stemming from a shooting incident at a rental property in Las Vegas. Led by Las Vegas Managing Partner, Janice Michaels, the WSHB team including Kyle Hoyt argued their way to victory on behalf of owners of a short-term rental. The case involved homeowners who utilized an online marketplace in order to rent their property to a third-party tenant, who subsequently hosted a party in violation of house rules, leading to a nearby shooting away from the home that injured the plaintiff.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is proud to announce a remarkable legal victory on behalf of a multi-million dollar construction client, securing the dismissal of complex data breach class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California (NDCA). The case, which consolidated multiple class action suits, involved the compromise of 24,000 employee files following a ransomware attack.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to announce a significant victory in a bench trial led by trial attorney Thomas Fama. The case, which had been pending for nearly five years due to pandemic-related delays and unreasonable demands by the plaintiff, concluded with a resounding judgment in favor of the defendant.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman is pleased to share that partner Andy Kessler has secured a favorable award in a binding arbitration that had been pending since 2017 in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

In a significant ruling, Texas Department of Insurance et al. v. Stonewater Roofing, Ltd., Co., 2024 WL 2869414 (June 7, 2024), the Texas Supreme Court upheld state regulations mandate licensing for public insurance adjusters and prohibit dual roles as both a contractor and adjuster. This decision came after Stonewater Roofing, a roofing contractor, challenged the constitutionality of these regulations, arguing they violated First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court's decision has critical implications for insurers and contractors, reinforcing the legal boundaries within which they must operate.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman, a leading defense litigation firm, is pleased to announce a resounding victory in a high-profile medical malpractice case. After an intense over month long jury trial, celebrated trial attorney, Ryan Deane, successfully secured a defense verdict on behalf of the client, a gynecological surgeon.

In a recent ruling, the Nevada Court of Appeals delivered an important decision in the case of Igtiben v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of the State of Nev., No. 86567-COA (Nev. App. Dec. 21, 2023) shedding light on the significance of medical records in medical malpractice claims. The case centered around a prisoner who passed away in a hospital after receiving medical treatment. This ruling has far-reaching implications for professionals involved in the defense of medical malpractice claims in Nevada, emphasizing the critical role of thorough medical record examination in triggering inquiry notice.

Product manufacturers and sellers faced with strict products liability claims often look to industry and government safety standards in formulating their defense. While most states permit this type of evidence, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Werner Co., 306 A.3d 846 (Pa. 2023), has again reaffirmed Pennsylvania's stance that its Courts will not follow this trend. Thus, evidence of this nature will not be allowed to be introduced in strict products liability cases in the Commonwealth. In what many consider an outdated viewpoint, the Pennsylvania high court ruled that the introduction of this evidence would only confuse the issue for jurors. Practitioners defending products liability cases in Pennsylvania should apprise themselves of the details of this decision and plan their case strategies accordingly.

In CBRE v. The Superior Court of San Diego County/Johnson, No. D083130 (June 4, 2024), the court determined that a written contract is not required to apply the Privette doctrine. The court found that the hirers delegated control over tenant improvements to the contractor before the litigant's injury occurred. Additionally, the court found that no exceptions to the Privette doctrine applied in this case.

WSHB, a leading litigation and trial law firm, is pleased to announce a significant win in a complex transportation case handled by the Michigan office. The litigation involved an unfortunate incident where a vehicle rented by a well-known national overnight delivery service was hit by the Plaintiff, resulting in a series of legal claims.

In a case of first impression in Colorado, on May 23, 2024, the Court of Appeals has established a test for evaluating claims of actual discharge under state law. The case, Potts v. Gaia Children LLC, No. 23CA1008 (May 23, 2024), centers on a plaintiff who appealed the district court's dismissal of her wrongful discharge claim. The Colorado appellate court concluded the allegations could substantiate a finding of actual discharge and adopted a definition of "actual discharge" in line with federal court holdings.

In the case of Truck Ins. Exch. V. Kaiser Cement, Case No. 5273179, 2004 WL 3016941 (June 17, 2024), the Supreme Court of California examined when a first-level excess insurer's indemnity obligations attach in a situation involving continuous injury that potentially triggered multiple policy periods. It concluded that the language contained in the first-level excess policies was materially identical to that of the language in the higher-level policies. Based on this assessment, it concluded that the first-level excess policies are best interpreted as requiring only vertical exhaustion.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB) is pleased to announce a major legal victory for its New York office in a recent New York Labor Law case. Courtney Scharpf, a senior counsel in the firm's New York office, successfully defeated the plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240(1) and obtained a dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law 200 and 214(6) claims, as well as contractual indemnification on our third-party action against the employer. Together with co-managing partner Tracy Abatemarco, Scharpf secured a victory in an area of the law where summary judgment wins are infrequent.

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court recently delivered a significant opinion in maritime law. The holding in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co, LLC, No. 22-500 stands for the proposition that choice-of-law clauses in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, subject only to very narrow limited exceptions.

The recent Illinois appellate case of King v. El Paraiso Del Pacifico, Inc., 2024 IL App. (2d) 230026, has raised important considerations regarding the duty of care businesses owe to their patrons, particularly in relation to accidents caused by out-of-control drivers. In this case the court held that a car crashing through the front entrance of a restaurant was reasonably foreseeable and not an “intervening or superseding” cause of a patron’s injuries. The court determined that the accident fell within the scope of the business's duty of care. This decision is of high importance because previously the Illinois Supreme Court found there was reluctant to impose a duty to protect invitees against out-of-control drivers. This article will delve into the facts of the case, highlight the significance of this decision, and discuss its implications for businesses and insurance carriers in the state of Illinois.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that standard commercial property insurance policies do not cover business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, aligning with many other courts around the country. The case, AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. Am. Guarantee Liab. Ins. Co. _ N.J._ (Jan. 24, 2024), centered around a casino operator in Atlantic City who claimed losses due to the presence of COVID-19 particles on its premises and the resulting governmental shutdown of its operations.

How do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy.

The United States Supreme Court finally clarification what lower courts must do when a case is compelled to arbitration. In a unanimous decision from Justice Sotomayor, the Court decided that lower courts must stay cases subject to arbitration and that the lower courts have no discretion to dismiss those cases.

In a significant legal triumph, Luana DiSarra Scavone, a partner in the Boston office of Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB), successfully obtained the dismissal of all claims in a professional liability complaint filed against a real estate agent and their brokerage firm. The Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons issued a favorable decision, clearing the respondents of all allegations.

In a significant victory for the construction industry, trial attorney Maggy Mazlin obtained a unanimous defense verdict on liability in favor of her client during the trial of a high-stakes New York Labor Law case. In doing so, the defense steadfastly rejected a $4 million dollar demand from plaintiff.

The Communications Decency Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. Section 230, has long been a foundational tenet of law governing the internet, providing crucial protections for online platforms. However, it is under intense scrutiny once again as the law faces significant re-examination and potential reform. The new legislation proposes to sunset Section 230 during the final week of 2025, effectively setting a timer on Congressional action and giving lawmakers only eighteen months to establish a new standard for liability. This legislative move seeks to address mounting concerns about the role of online platforms in hosting and moderating user-generated content. At the crux of the issue is whether online platforms can be held responsible for the content that users post.

In a per curiam opinion, the Texas Supreme Court reversed a $12 million jury nuclear verdict, determining that counsel for the Plaintiff improperly suggested in his closing arguments that the defense was motivated by gender and racial bias. In the case of Roberto Alonzo and New Prime Inc. v. John, 647 S.W.3d 764, 770-71 (Tex. May 10, 2024).The court determined that an unprovoked and uninvited personal attack on the defense counsel was improper and inflammatory while completely unsupported by any evidentiary basis presented in the case.

In the case of Pine Management v. Colony Insurance Company, 23-624-cv (2dCir. Mar. 26, 2024), the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York provided essential guidance regarding when a pre-suit demand constitutes a claim triggering the obligation to notify your liability insurer under New York law.

The Michigan Supreme Court recently approved a series of significant amendments to Rule 702 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence (MRE). Effective December 1, 2023 and May 1, 2024,¹ the Michigan rule was updated to align the state with Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Michigan now stands among the first states to fully adopt this updated federal standard.

Wood Smith Henning & Berman (WSHB), a prominent national law firm, is thrilled to announce a momentous victory for its client in a high-profile wrongful death case. The case, which tragically involved the untimely demise of a 15-year-old girl in an ATV accident, was successfully defended by WSHB trial attorneys, Graham Miller and Caroline Hopkins.

The recent ruling from the New York Court of Appeals has broadened the protective umbrella of Labor Law 241(6), deeming a plastic covering a foreign substance as defined in Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). Additionally, the court determined that the presence of the plastic covering did not qualify as an integral part of the work, highlighting the defendant's responsibility in creating an "avoidable danger." This opinion presents a significant challenge for defendants as it raises the risk of liability for owners, contractors, and their representatives in construction site accident cases. The case of Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00847 (decided on February 20, 2024), centers on a workplace injury that occurred while an employee was completing a painting project. The plaintiffs sought damages for injuries that resulted from a slip and fall on a plastic covering placed over the top of a stopped escalator.

In the complex world of property ownership and community governance, conflicts often emerge concerning the responsibilities of condominium associations versus individual unit owners. In Canner v. Governors Ridge Ass'n, 348 Conn. 726(Conn. Apr. 2, 2024), the Connecticut Supreme Court offered important insight regarding the intricate web of obligations outlined in Connecticut’s Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA), as well as the relevant statute of limitations analysis governing such claims. The plaintiffs raised concerns over the allegedly defective foundations of their units within a common interest community. Central to the plaintiffs' argument were assertions of negligence in design and construction, coupled with the association's purported failure to uphold its duties under CIOA. Conversely, the defendant condominium association invoked a statute of limitations defense, contending that the plaintiffs' claims were time barred. This case not only underscores the often complex interplay between contractual and tortious obligations, but also highlights the role of statutory interpretation in resolving disputes within common interest communities and clarifies the statute of limitations applicable to such claims.

The Oregon Supreme Court's recent decision in Trebelhorn v. Prime Wimbledon SPE, LLC, 372 Or.27 (2024) carries significant legal implications regarding excessive punitive damage awards in premises liability cases. The case, which centered on a tenant's injury due to a defective walkway at an apartment complex, sparked a legal battle that delved into a nuanced constitutional conversation surrounding the implications of punitive damages.

In a recent landmark legal development, the 1st District Appellate Court of Illinois rendered a pivotal decision addressing the interplay between "catchall exclusions" in insurance coverage and claims involving the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This seminal case, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, et. al. v. Visual Pak Co., 2023 IL App (ast) 221160, carries profound implications for both the business and insurance sectors. In this article we delve into the reverberations of this court ruling, exploring its ramifications for businesses, insurers, and policyholders alike.

On April 17, 2024, in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court changed the test for determining whether an employer violates Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions when it transfers an employee even if the transfer does not result in a loss of pay or benefits. Instead of having to show that the employee's job transfer resulted in "significant harm," the employee now only needs to show that the transfer resulted in "some harm."

WSHB, a leading national law firm specializing in litigation, is pleased to announce a major victory achieved by partners Chad Dunigan and Ryan Brooks in a highly contentious toxic tort arbitration matter. The successful defense resulted in a favorable outcome for their client, a prominent national homebuilder.

As fees and costs associated with litigation continue to rise, along with lengthy discovery periods and uncertain trials, those who require legal services can incur great costs in connection with litigation. As a result, such individuals and their attorneys are increasingly looking elsewhere for funding. This has led to a rise in third-party litigation agreements. These agreements can provide a major benefit to plaintiffs as they can decrease the financial risk when pursing what may be a frivolous lawsuit.

In a closely watched jury trial, WSHB managing partner Tim Repass achieved an impressive trial victory that showcased his exceptional litigation skills. After an intense two-week trial, the jury delivered a verdict that emphatically rejected the plaintiff's exorbitant $31 million in claimed damages. Plaintiff’s counsel used anchoring tactics in the admitted liability matter, but Repass successfully argued for a significantly reduced award of $550,000, even lower than our client's pre-trial offer.

In a closely watched decision, the Second Judicial Department reversed a surprising ruling by the Supreme Court of Queens County which denied governmental immunity to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. If allowed to stand the lower court decision would have had significant negative implications for public entities engaged in governmental functions. WSHB partner and accomplished trial attorney, Brian Colistra, successfully argued the appeal, securing a crucial victory for a client with much to lose as they operate the Port of New York and New Jersey, as well as the airports, bridges, tunnels, and bus terminals in the metro region.

WSHB is proud to announce yet another data breach class action dismissal by its Cyber Team, this time in the U.S. District Court for Arizona. Senior counsel John Darminio and partner Christopher Heo successfully obtained the dismissal of a data breach class action involving over 150,000 class members. Plaintiffs sought in excess of $5 million in damages from the client, even though it was the victim of a debilitating ransomware attack carried out by a criminal gang.

In an effort to improve traffic safety and address volatile conditions concerning transportation, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott signed two significant transportation bills into law in 2023. House Bill 1885 grants the Texas Transportation commission the authority to establish temporary speed limits under specific circumstances, while House bill 2190 brings a crucial change in the terminology used to describe transportation-related incidents. These legislative updates aim to increase safety and promote a more precise understanding of road situations.

Washington courts provided new guidance and protection for employers handling industrial injury and occupational disease claims. Previously, under the compensable consequences doctrine, employers risked being stuck with covering unrelated complications or aggravation with no causal connection to an industrial injury.

WSHB is proud to announce a significant triumph secured by New York Partners John Cofresi and Richard Sprock in a recent insurance coverage arbitration. The majority of the arbitration panel, composed of highly experienced arbitrators, delivered a defense verdict, denying the claimant's $15 million claim for business interruption and extra expense stemming from the suspension of manufacturing at one of its manufacturing facilities. The claimant also sought consequential damages for breach of the implied covenant of good-faith and fair dealing so as to expose our client to the considerable attorney's fees accrued by claimant's law firm.