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]

Read more...

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).

Read more...

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.

Read more...

Black Sheep Web Design set this site apart from the flock