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.
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.
"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."
More Articles...
- Carrier May Not Intervene in its Insured’s Tort Litigation Since It Didn’t Make any Payments
- Procurement of Insurance Necessary Before Invoking Waiver of Subrogation
- When Can an Owner or Tenant be Held Liable for the Acts of an Arsonist?
- “Casual” Sellers of Products Immune from Subrogation Suit
- Statute of Limitations for Claims Against Contractors
