Uninsured versus underinsured? There is a big difference, and the jury should know!
The Sixth District Court of Appeals rules in favor of the insurance carrier, finding that ensuing water damage is not covered under the insurance carrier’s policy language.
Without deciding whether the 4th District Court reached the correct result under Fla. Stat. §627.7252(2)(a)4’s actual text, the 1st District Court reached a different conclusion, where the alleged facts could not be determined on a motion to dismiss.
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal rules insurance carrier had duty to defend.
Failure to settle compensatory damages claim for policy limit, despite carve-out for punitive damages claim, amounts to bad-faith under totality of the circumstances standard.
Jennifer L. McCallister
Summary Judgment Secured in a Pennsylvania Breach of Contract Matter
We won summary judgment before the Honorable Anthony Verwey in Chester County, PA. The plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PAUTPCPL) against the defendants over the installation of an allegedly defective storm water remediation system. Summary judgment was sought on the grounds that the plaintiff could not prove damages without an expert.
Summary Judgment Won in Slip and Fall Case Involving a Large Supermarket Chain
We won summary judgment in Franklin County, Ohio, for a large supermarket chain in a slip-and-fall case. The plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell in the parking lot on ice that remained more than two days after the most recent snow fall and after the lot had been plowed and salted by a co-defendant. The plaintiff’s expert opined that no amount of remaining snow or ice is acceptable and that the standard of care according to the Ohio Building Code requires complete removal in order to maintain a “slip-resistant” surface.
Defense Verdict Received in a High/Low Arbitration
We received a defense verdict in a high/low arbitration. We represented a surgeon in a case in which the plaintiff alleged a delay in the performance of an appendectomy for a perforated appendix. The plaintiff went on to require a prolonged hospitalization and two subsequent surgeries. We successfully argued that the delay in the performance of the surgery did not result in any of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.