Fall From Ladder Prompts Labor Law “Homeowners’ Exception” Analysis The most well-known exception to the Labor Law is the “homeowners’ exception,” and is found in the opening sentence of Labor Law § 240(1): “All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners...
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Reaffirms Requirement for Sufficient Factual Allegations to Support Statutory Bad Faith Claims
In a recent slip opinion in Leyman v. Economy Fire & Casualty Company, No. 23-3458 2023 WL 8188444 (E.D. Pa. Nov 27, 2023), the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted an insurer’s Motion to Dismiss the statutory bad faith...
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Held Insured May Have Reasonably Believed her Lawsuit was Timely Based on Typographical Error in Claim Correspondence
In a recent slip copy opinion in Duffy v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 22-4402, 2023 WL 8832416 (E.D. Pa. Dec 21, 2023) the Court denied an insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The insurer contended that the insured’s claims were time barred by the...
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Assignee of Benefits has Standing to Assert Statutory Bad Faith Claims
In a recent slip opinion in Cutting Edge Tree Professionals, LLC v. State Farm Fire Claims Company, et al., No. 23-cv-3197 2024 WL 53011 (E.D. Pa. Jan 4, 2024) the United States Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered an insurer’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint....
Rare “Question of Fact” in Labor Law § 240(1) Motion from Kings County
Due to the nature of the Labor Law in New York, specifically section 240(1), notoriously known as “The Scaffold Law”, summary judgment motions resulting in a question of fact are a rare and mysterious jewel in a sea of jurisprudence finding in favor of plaintiffs. ...
“Loss of Balance” is Question of Fact in Labor Law § 240(1) Motion from Kings County
Truly in a giving mood around the holidays, the Supreme Court, Kings County found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment in his Labor Law § 240(1) claim when he stated he “lost his footing or balance and fell off” the subject ladder. In...
“No Apparent Reason” for Scaffold Fall is Prima Facie for Plaintiff’s § 240(1) Cause of Action
Once again, we turn to the Appellate Division, First Department for our regular reminder that even though a safety device may fail for “no apparent reason,” that still is sufficient to establish liability under New York’s Labor Law § 240(1), otherwise known as “The...
Glen Shikunov Secures Supreme Court Reversal in Decision Upholding Validity of “Regular Use Exclusion” in Pennsylvania
In a recent decision in Rush v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 77 MAP 2022 (Pa. Jan. 29, 2024) (Maj. Op. by Donohue, J.)( Wecht, J., Concurring) the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered the question of whether the “regular use exclusion,” commonly included in auto...
Zoom Depositions and Subpoenas Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 Are Not So Simple
In the so-called “Post-COVID” age of litigation, virtual depositions are commonplace and sometimes preferred in third-party subpoena ad testificandum practice. A major reason is to eliminate the travel of both subpoenaed witnesses and lawyers, particularly when...