Publications
A person’s status on the date of loss—not his status at the start of the policy period—determines whether that person is an “insured”; an ex-husband is not a “relative.”
The insured's ex-husband was denied coverage for fire damage to his personal property because he was neither a named insured nor a relative of the named insured on the date of loss.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
A claim for legal malpractice accrues when an attorney's breach of professional duty proximately causes a plaintiff's damages.
The plaintiffs appealed from an order dismissing their complaint against the defendant for legal malpractice based on the entire controversy doctrine.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Should a party’s financial situation be considered when assessing exercise of due diligence?
On August 18, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the plaintiff leave to appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and in holding that the medical malpractice action wa
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Open Public Records Act requests for a specific time period are valid.
The plaintiff filed an Open Public Records Act request for copies of all attorney invoices and settlement agreements from 2010 to 2015. The defendant township denied the request, and the Law Division agreed that the request was invalid.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Delaware’s Supreme Court limits the business judgment protections for stockholder-approved equity incentive awards.
Stockholders of Investors Bancorp, Inc. sued 10 non-employee board members and two key officers, challenging their receipt of equity incentive awards under a discretionary 2015 Equity Incentive Plan.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Important ruling on how often a petition to terminate total disability benefits can be filed.
The claimant filed a legal motion seeking to dismiss the employer’s termination petition as having been filed in violation of § 2347 of the Act. The Board disagreed and dismissed the motion.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Claimant did not voluntarily remove himself from workforce; therefore, he is entitled to compensation for total disability following a recurrence.
Both parties agreed that the claimant had proven a recurrence of his work-related disability. The narrow issue was whether the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the workforce during the period he was receiving partial disability.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
The Appellate Division revisits Laidlow and the intentional wrong exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act.
Finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his workplace accident met the intentional wrong standard to allow him to seek damages from his employer, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
Protz II prompts Commonwealth Court to reverse a Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to modify benefits based on an IRE performed in 2005 using the Fifth Edition of the AMA Guides.
In her second appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that the Workers’ Compensation Judge erred in concluding that her benefits were modified based on an IRE performed using the Fifth Edition of the AMA Guides, which the Commo
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018
An employer that establishes that a claimant’s loss of earnings is not related to the work injury, but is related to other factors, is not required to prove job availability within the claimant’s medical restrictions.
The Workers’ Compensation Judge granted the employer’s suspension petition, mainly because the claimant refused to work because he was reprimanded for not calling in before job, which he was required to do.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018