Recent Blog Posts
New York Court Elaborates on “Expected or Intended” Damages, Commercial Coverage Issues
We previously discussed an Appellate Division case touching on when and how liability insurance coverage may be excluded because the damage caused was “expected or intended” by the policyholder as opposed to “accidental.” In that case, as we explained, the court ultimately focused on subjective vs. objective intent. Following that decision, a trial court… Read More »
New York Court Holds to Narrow Interpretation of “Expected or Intended Injury” in Liability Policy
New York courts have a practice of construing policy language in a manner most favorable to policyholders where possible. A recent example illustrates the absurd results such an approach can yield. A New York appeals court recently parsed the difference between “expected or intended” injury and injury that occurs after a policyholder has been… Read More »
New York Court of Appeals Sets High Bar For Causation in Toxic Tort Cases
We’ve discussed causation and how it plays into toxic tort cases before. Causation is a complex issue, often making or breaking toxic tort cases such as those involving asbestos or lead paint. Several recent appellate court decisions have appeared to reduce the causation requirement in finding, for example, that proving at least some level… Read More »
The Next Wave of Toxic Tort Class Actions: PFAS and Cosmetics
Toxic exposure lawsuits are nothing new. One of the most famous toxic tort cases centering around a California town’s exposure to chemicals from a nearby Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) plant was even turned into a Hollywood blockbuster film starring Julia Roberts. Lately, there’s been a new target for the ire of plaintiffs’ lawyers… Read More »
New York Lessens CPLR 3101(f) “CIDA” Disclosure Requirements
In an earlier post, we discussed the newly-minted CPLR 3101(f) “Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act”. We also discussed rumors that Governor Kathy Hochul was sympathetic with sentiments that the burdens imposed by the bill were overly broad. There was talk of a less restrictive version of CPLR 3101(f) that might be in the works. Now,… Read More »
New York Federal Court Requires Disclosure of Insurer’s Communications With Attorney Concerning Claim Investigation
It’s important to keep in mind the role of an insurance coverage defense attorney, both for the attorney and for the insurer. Your coverage defense attorney is meant to counsel you with regard to whether a particular claim has merit pursuant to the policy, aid you with the response thereto, and represent you should… Read More »
Evidentiary Rules Committee, Possibly Supreme Court, Consider Expert Witness Standard
Expert witness testimony is an essential component of many types of litigation, from medical malpractice to insurance defense. Whether a given witness’s testimony is admitted can be the most important deciding factor in a lawsuit. Nowhere is this more true than in toxic tort cases. We’ve talked before about how an expert’s opinion on,… Read More »
New York Governor Signs the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act
To cap off the end of 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act into law. The new law compels defendants to disclose a wealth of information about insurance policies as well as other information about legal claims shortly after a lawsuit is commenced. The insurance industry and the defense… Read More »
New York City Mayor Waives Asbestos Fees After Hurricane Ida
Hurricane Ida was a massive, destructive storm that tore through the east coast. Many buildings in New York were damaged or destroyed. Property owners were tasked with finding ways to repair their damaged buildings while accounting for the increased risk of exposure to asbestos that had been present in walls and roofing materials. Mayor… Read More »
Major Chemical Company to Face Toxic Tort Trial After New York Federal Appellate Court Rules Plaintiff’s Expert Erroneously Excluded
A recent decision from the federal appeals court governing New York may lead to significant liability for major chemical manufacturer DuPont. The appellate court disagreed with the trial court, which had excluded the plaintiff’s expert testimony to be used against DuPont and consequently kicked the case. The appellate decision could have a significant impact… Read More »
