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
“Casual” Sellers of Products Immune from Subrogation Suit
In New York, generally, wholesalers or retailers of goods (such as Sears, WalMart, etc.) may be sued and held liable for damage caused by products they sold even if the wholesaler simply purchased a product in a sealed box and sold it. Many wholesalers and retailers have contractual or common law indemnification from the manufacturers and many times subrogation lawsuits are simply turned over to the manufacturer, who picks up the seller’s defense and indemnity. However, if the manufacturer has declared bankruptcy, the wholesaler or retailer is still on the hook and may still be held strictly liable.
Statute of Limitations for Claims Against Contractors
In New York, most subrogation actions must be filed within three (3) years from the date of loss. However, there are some important exceptions. The most important one is work that was done by contractors or architects. In such cases, the lawsuit must be filed no later than three years from the date the work was completed. The lead case is a 1995 decision from NY’s high court. [1] A construction company built a new library for the City of Newburgh. Construction was completed in 1975. In October 1990, a water pipe burst in the library, causing $1.5 million in damage. Plaintiff alleged that a steel plug caused a gradual chemical corrosion on copper piping. The high court affirmed the dismissal of this lawsuit, finding that the clock started to run in 1975 – even though the pipe did not burst until fifteen years later!
Court: Evidence Was Not “Spoliated” By Removing It From Fire Scene
A fire substantially destroyed a custom-built log home. The homeowner’s fire investigator determined the fire began in the area where two electrical panel boxes had been mounted. Presence of “blow holes” in one of the panel boxes indicated fire started due to electrical arcing. The fire investigator fully photographed and documented the scene, then took the panel boxes to a secure facility for safekeeping. The fire investigator left behind a yellow placard with the investigator’s name, address, and an “800” number and a direction that no one was to remove anything from the scene.
