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
Health Insurer’s subrogation rights not extinguished by release signed by insured
Plaintiff GHI paid approximately $71,000 in health benefits to its insured, Weaver, for injuries she suffered in an auto accident. Weaver sued the other driver and his employer, Mid-Hudson Cable and settled her PI claim for $2 million. At the time of the settlement, both Weaver and Mid-Hudson knew that GHI had made payments and was asserting a lien on the PI file. Weaver’s attorney signed a settlement agreement with the other driver in which, among other things, Weaver agreed to defend and indemnify Mid-Hudson from any further claims, including any claims of health insurance lienholders. Weaver signed a general release releasing all claims against the other driver.
Failure to Give Adverse Party Notice Could Lead to Spoliation Sanctions
Spoliation has become a “hot button” issue in New York and other states within the past decade. New York used to define spoliation as the “willful or intentional” destruction of evidence. [1] Not anymore. A finding of “bad faith” or “evil motive” is no longer a prerequisite for imposition of sanctions for destruction of evidence. Courts have concluded that one accused of starting a fire is prejudiced if it cannot have its own cause and origin expert inspect a fire scene for other potential causes. [2]
Anti-Subrogation Rule Bars Recovery by Auto Insurer Against Driver
A New York appellate court recent ruled on the applicability of the “anti-subrogation” rule. This rule provides that: “An insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered.”
More Articles...
- Arbitrator finds liability against fire extinguishment inspection company
- Appellate Court Overturns Arson Verdict
- Court Interprets Contractor’s Indemnification Clause
- Court Allows Subrogation Action To Proceed Against A Municipality
- One Court Allows Auto Fire Case to Proceed; Another Court Dismisses Fireplace Subro
