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
Appellate Court Dismisses Tire Rupture Case
George Stalker operated a truck repair business for over twenty years. His work included repairing tires. In March, 2001, Mr. Stalker discovered a flat tire on one of his flatbed trailers. While inflating the tire, a “zipper rupture” occurred [1], the tire exploded and Mr. Stalker was propelled across the room and died. The tire had been manufactured in 1993 by Goodyear. Stalker’s widow filed a products liability suit against Goodyear. The judge dismissed the lawsuit and the appellate court now affirms.[2]
Insured and Tortfeasor Can’t Extinguish Health Insurer’s Subro Rights
Plaintiff (“P”) received medical services from doctor (“D”). She subsequently developed complications which required two liver transplants. Her medical bills totaled approximately $780,000 and were paid by her health insurer (“H”). P sued D for medical malpractice. H filed a motion to intervene in P’s lawsuit against D.[1] P and D did not oppose the motion, so the judge allowed H to take part in P’s litigation with D. On the second day of trial, P and D reached an agreement whereby D agreed to pay P $900,000 and P and D agreed that H’s claim was to be dismissed. P and D argued that, even though D had a $2 million policy limit, since P was not being paid the full amount of her damages and therefore had not been “made whole,” H’s claim had to be dismissed. The judge agreed, approved the settlement and dismissed H’s claim (over his objection).
The “Work Product” Exclusion Does Not Bar Subrogation Claim
Homeowners (“H”) hired defendants (“D”) to apply a protective sealant to the cedar wood siding of the exterior of their home. Drop cloths used by D, and containing sealant, were stored on-site and allegedly caused a fire by spontaneous combustion. The fire substantially destroyed H’s home. Their carrier (“C”) paid under their homeowner’s policy and brought a subrogation against D for improper disposal of combustible material.
More Articles...
- Health Insurer’s subrogation rights not extinguished by release signed by insured
- Failure to Give Adverse Party Notice Could Lead to Spoliation Sanctions
- Anti-Subrogation Rule Bars Recovery by Auto Insurer Against Driver
- Arbitrator finds liability against fire extinguishment inspection company
- Appellate Court Overturns Arson Verdict
