After nine successful years, Bowitch & Coffey is closing its doors. Starting August 1, 2021, Gary Bowitch and Dan Coffey will be practicing law in their own law firms and will continue to provide clients with the same high quality legal services in their areas of expertise. Their new contact information is:


Gary S. Bowitch

Attorney at Law

13 Willow Street

Castleton, NY 12033

Phone: 518-527-2232

Email: gbowitch@bowitchlaw.com

Bowitch Law New Website

Daniel Coffey

Coffey Law PLLC

17 Elk Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-813-9500

Email: Dan@coffeylawny.com

Coffey Law New Website

The “Assembly” Product Defect Case

Under New York law, there are three product defect theories:  (a) design defect; (b) manufacturing (or “assembly”) defect; and (c) failure to adequately warn.   In order to survive a Daubert [1]   challenge (when your case is in federal court), your expert must be able to set forth in detail not only that a product failed, but why it failed, and what caused it to fail.

Read more...

Maryland High Court Finds Waiver of Subrogation Provision May Be Inapplicable

Not much subrogation news out of New York this month.  I highlight a decision from Maryland’s highest court last summer, which interpreted an AIA waiver of subrogation clause in a construction contract.[1]   Sixteen (16) months after final payment was made on a restaurant construction job, fire broke out which destroyed the structure.  Hartford paid over a million dollars and subrogated against the GC and electrical contractor, alleging that the fire was caused by a failure of electrical wiring.

Read more...

"Forcing" Insured to Protect Carrier's Subrogation Interests May Violate GBL 349

On or about October 8, 2005, a storm allegedly caused a hillside on an insureds' property in Rosslyn, NY, to collapse, destroyed their retaining wall, felled several trees, and caused other damage.Allstate denied the claim, prompting a lawsuit by the insureds.Among other things, the insureds' complaint sought punitive damages and damages under General Business Law ("GBL") section 349, claiming the insurer had engaged in "deceptive acts and practices."Specifically, the insured alleged that the insurer purposely failed to reach a decision on the merits of their insurance claim in order to force the plaintiffs to bring a suit against the Village of Rosslyn before the statute of limitations expired.[1]  The insureds contended that their policy of insurance had language which required the insureds to retain an attorney and sue the Village in order to protect the insurer's subrogation rights. The plaintiffs/insureds argued that, if they did not do so, the insurer could refuse reimbursement of the claim on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to protect the defendant's subrogation rights.  They alleged that the insurer's actions "caused injury to Plaintiffs, and have the potential to harm the public at large."

Read more...

Black Sheep Web Design set this site apart from the flock