Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Law Alerts

State
Practice Area
Keyword

Pages

A claim for breach of covenants of good faith and fair dealing requires the plaintiff to plead a distinct factual basis.
New York • Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith Litigation • April 11, 2013
This insurance coverage dispute involves claims by the plaintiff for supplementary benefits under two insurance policies for injuries he suffered in a car accident. Before the court were motions by the defendant GEICO pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P..., Case Law Alerts - 2nd Quarter 2013
IRS Loses Lawsuit Challenging Its Authority to Regulate Certain Tax Preparers
Federal • Professional Liability • January 24, 2013
On Friday, January 18, 2013, James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in which the Court ruled that the IRS lacks statutory authority to promulgate or enforce the new...
Amendments to Medicare Lien Legislation
Federal • Medicare Set-Aside • January 16, 2013
Anyone who has settled liability or workers' compensation claims in the past couple of years knows how difficult it can be to understand and comply with the Medicare secondary payer rules regarding the reimbursement of liens, as set forth in...
Sufficiency of adverse action to give rise to CEPA claim.
New Jersey • Employment Law • January 11, 2013
The plaintiff was a deckhand aboard a passenger ferry and a member of a collective bargaining unit that was governed by a CBA. The plaintiff filed an action challenging the terms of the CBA, and in response, the employer reduced the hours of all..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of its order granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s 3rd and 4th counterclaims for consequential and punitive damages where plaintiff relied upon marine surveyor’s report in denying coverage.
New York • Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith Litigation • January 11, 2013
The plaintiff insurer filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of New York, seeking a judgment that damage to the defendant’s yacht was not covered by the marine insurance policy it had issued to him. The district court had..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
To avoid liability, defendant raising a claim of highly reckless conduct must plead and prove such a claim as an affirmative defense.
Pennsylvania • Product Liability • January 11, 2013
The Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether a defendant in a products liability action must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured party's alleged "highly reckless conduct" was the sole or..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
"Whistle-blowing" of actions of subordinates does not give rise to CEPA claim.
New Jersey • Employment Law • January 11, 2013
The plaintiff complained about the work performance and conduct of a number of his subordinates and recommended their discharge. The conduct complained of was not requested or sanctioned by the employer. In upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing dismissed where it merely restated the breach of contract claim and did not rely on tortious activity.
New York • Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith Litigation • January 11, 2013
This matter arose from a property damage claim following fire and water damage to an Elks Lodge. The Lodge hired the plaintiff to inspect and repair the damages for $342,973.47. The Lodge paid the plaintiff $134,973.46, and was subsequently..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
The plain language of Pa.R.E. 407 only restricts the introduction of remedial measures that are made after the occurrence of the injury or harm.
Pennsylvania • Product Liability • January 11, 2013
The Supreme Court upheld a ruling that evidence of design changes and reports of prior incidents introduced by the plaintiff were, in fact, admissible to the jury. "The unambiguous and plain language of Pa.R.E. 407 only restricts the..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
CEPA award does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages.
New Jersey • Employment Law • January 11, 2013
The plaintiff filed a CEPA claim alleging illegal activity by a co-worker. The claim proceeded to trial, and the jury found that the plaintiff's discharge was in retaliation for her whistle-blowing activity. The jury awarded the plaintiff..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013

Pages

© 2013 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1

Please read the following disclaimer:

Thank you for your interest in our firm. The information contained on this Website contains statements, videos and other content about the type and quality of services offered by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, as well as past results and testimonials about the firm. This information has not been reviewed nor approved by the Florida Bar.

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and/or testimonials have been provided.
  • All results of cases handled by the firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.
  • The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by any individual attorney or by the firm nor of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.


Please acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer by clicking on one of the two links below.

YES I have read and understand the above statements. I am interested in learning more about Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. NO I do not want to view the information.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."