Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Long Island, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. Results Speak for Themselves We are litigators who think practically not abstractly. We are trial lawyers who understand coverage and coverage lawyers who try cases. We are advisors who help you manage your risk. PRACTICE AREAS Our Practice Areas OUR VISION What sets Wade Clark Mulcahy apart Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP attorneys represent clients who rely upon our success as advocates and our practical, results oriented advice and recognized expertise as trial and appellate lawyers across a broad spectrum of insurance, commercial and coverage matters. While we practice from our offices in New York City, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Long Island, Florida and Louisiana, our clients regularly call upon us to manage risk in jurisdictions across the country. Our growth has been driven by client referrals. ATTORNEYS Latest News

Latest News Button January 26, 2025 Read More Defense Verdict for Steve Kim in NJ Construction Accident Trial Defense Verdict for Steve Kim in NJ Construction Accident Trial Button January 15, 2025 Read More DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia Button January 6, 2025 Read More Steve Kim Obtains a Favorable Verdict in a Challenging Workplace TBI Trial (NJ) Steve Kim Obtains a Favorable Verdict in a Challenging Workplace TBI Trial (NJ) Button January 3, 2025 Read More Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Jason Laicha Promoted to Senior Associate Button October 10, 2024 Read More Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest Mike Bono to Present at IFASIC Conference in Budapest Button October 8, 2024 Read More WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment WCM Wins Major Coverage Ruling for Specie Market: Classic “Unattended Vehicle” Exclusion Applies to Goods on Consignment Button September 27, 2024 Read More When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time When Making a Notice of Claim, Make Sure to Include EVERY Claim the First Time Button September 27, 2024 Read More LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property LIABLE, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT: How Landlords Must Be Clear About the Transferring of Possession and Control When Leasing Property Button September 27, 2024 Read More How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury How “Serious”’ Means Serious Injury Button September 27, 2024 Read More Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Even Though He Couldn’t See, it’s Defendant’s Fault Button September 27, 2024 Read More Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Subcontractor’s Insurer Must Reimburse General Contractor For Defense Costs in Workplace Injury to Subcontractor’s Employee Button September 23, 2024 Read More Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass Cards Against Humanity Sues SpaceX Over Texas Trespass Button September 20, 2024 Read More No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case No Duty to Defend: Insurers Off the Hook in "Ghost Gun" Sales Case Button September 20, 2024 Read More Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City Navigating the Affirmative Negligence Exception in Trip and Fall Cases Against the City Button September 20, 2024 Read More What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? What is Considered Adequate Inspection Of An Establishment? Button September 20, 2024 Read More Balancing the Scales: The Role of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Pennsylvania Negligence Cases Balancing the Scales: The Role of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Pennsylvania Negligence Cases Button September 20, 2024 Read More The Fine Print Matters: Winning Contractual Indemnification Claims Between Tenants and Landlords The Fine Print Matters: Winning Contractual Indemnification Claims Between Tenants and Landlords Button September 13, 2024 Read More Coverage Limits, Continuing Causes, and COVID-19: District Court of New Jersey Holds COVID-19 Executive Orders Constitute One “Occurrence” Coverage Limits, Continuing Causes, and COVID-19: District Court of New Jersey Holds COVID-19 Executive Orders Constitute One “Occurrence” Button September 13, 2024 Read More It Wasn’t the Pig’s Fault It Wasn’t the Pig’s Fault Button September 6, 2024 Read More Notice of Claim Pitfall: New York Appellate Court Confirms That Original Deficiencies Cannot Be Corrected With §50-h Hearing Testimony Notice of Claim Pitfall: New York Appellate Court Confirms That Original Deficiencies Cannot Be Corrected With §50-h Hearing Testimony Button September 6, 2024 Read More Recent New York Decision Highlight the Importance of Documenting Condition of Property During Utility Work Recent New York Decision Highlight the Importance of Documenting Condition of Property During Utility Work Button September 6, 2024 Read More FLORIDA’S NEW YEARS RESOLUTION: Complying With Amendments To Rules of Civil Procedure Promoting Active Case Management FLORIDA’S NEW YEARS RESOLUTION: Complying With Amendments To Rules of Civil Procedure Promoting Active Case Management Button September 4, 2024 Read More Jury Sides With The Mouse Against Disney Adults In VIP Club Lawsuit Jury Sides With The Mouse Against Disney Adults In VIP Club Lawsuit Button August 30, 2024 Read More Literally Blinded to a Latent Danger Literally Blinded to a Latent Danger Button August 30, 2024 Read More Recovery Under Labor Law 240(1) Requires Establishing Proximate Cause of Injury Recovery Under Labor Law 240(1) Requires Establishing Proximate Cause of Injury Load More

News Defense Verdict for Steve Kim in NJ Construction Accident Trial January 26, 2025 < Back Share to: WCM New Jersey Partner Steve Kim recently secured a "no cause" defense verdict in favor of our client, a drywall subcontractor involved in a high exposure construction liability case. The case arose from allegations related to a workplace accident where the plaintiff claimed that the absence of temporary safety railings at a construction site contributed to their injuries. Steve successfully demonstrated to the jury that our client had completed their work safely and professionally well before the incident occurred and was not responsible for the alleged conditions at the site. This verdict reflects the importance of careful preparation and a clear presentation of the facts in achieving a favorable outcome for our client. We are proud to have been able to protect our client’s interests and bring this matter to a favorable resolution. At Wade Clark Mulcahy, we are committed to providing effective representation for businesses in construction and other industries. Feel free to contact @ skim@wcmlaw.com with questions about the trial or his practice areas. Previous Next Steve J. Kim Steve J. Kim Partner +1 212 267 1900 skim@wcmlaw.com Contact

Diana Rosario Associate New York (332) 251-0741 drosario@wcmlaw.com Professional Experience Diana specializes in general liability actions, including personal injury, property damage, premises liability, construction defect claims, and trucking claims. Her responsibilities encompass fact analysis and investigation, drafting pleadings and motions, conducting legal research, and assisting with trial preparation. During her time in law school, Diana interned at a mid-sized firm where she contributed to various litigation matters. Additionally, she served as a Law Clerk at Hofstra’s Deportation Defense Clinic focusing on cases involving motions to reopen, removal orders, and gang-related allegations. Prior to attending law school, Diana worked as a senior paralegal, managing no-fault claims and gaining experience with filings through the American Arbitration Association. Professional Activities Member, New York State Bar Association Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D., Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University B.A., John Jay College of Criminal Justice - CUNY Bar Admissions New York Court Admissions New York

News DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek secure a Trial Victory in Philadelphia January 15, 2025 < Back Share to: Last week, DJ Dawson and Sarah Polacek obtained what amounts to a Zero Dollar Verdict on a premises liability case in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, involving a trip and fall where WCM represented a mall owner. The co-defendant was a store owner within the mall. To support Plaintiff’s damages, Plaintiff produced a cost projection expert who testified that Plaintiff would receive future medical care totaling $314,074.00, despite that Plaintiff only underwent physical therapy for six months following the alleged accident and has not received further treatment in three years since the alleged accident. Philadelphia is a jurisdiction known for nuclear verdicts. Before trial, plaintiff’s “bottom line” demand to our client and the co-defendant was $750,000. This was Sarah’s first trial and she secured multiple motions in limine being granted in our client’s favor. After trial, and after DJ and Sarah effectively poked holes in Plaintiff’s liability and damages proofs, the jury apportioned 32% of the negligence to our client, and then awarded Plaintiff a grand total $15,000 in damages. The 32% apportionment equated to a $4,800 judgment. However, the co-defendant settled with Plaintiff during trial, and that settlement amount exceeded the jury award. Meaning, after the offset of the co-defendant settlement, our client effectively owes nothing. Great job DJ and Sarah! Previous Next D.J. Dawson D.J. Dawson Partner 267.946.2473 ddawson@wcmlaw.com Contact

Marc D. Mory Counsel New Jersey (973) 258-1700 mmory@wcmlaw.com Professional Experience Marc D. Mory has over 20 years of experience in civil litigation including matters ranging from general premises liability and personal injury to employment law and complex civil rights cases. As a civil litigator, Marc has handled matters from pre-suit, through the litigation process, including pretrial discovery, motion practice and appeals. Marc also has experience in partnership and business disputes, banking law, and the Uniform Commercial Code and has counseled clients regarding employment investigations and training. Marc graduated with a Bachelor of Arts from Brandeis University with a double major in Sociology and American Studies. He received his Juris Doctor degree in 2001 from the Hofstra University School of Law. Prior to graduation, Marc served as a legal intern for the Honorable Martin J. Kravarick, J.S.C., retired, in the Civil Division of the Superior Court, Middlesex County. Before joining WCM, he was an attorney at both large and small firms throughout New Jersey, offering him a unique perspective regarding the efficient management of litigation. Honors and Distinctions · Managing Editor, Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal Professional Activities New York Bar Association New Jersey Bar Association Middlesex County Bar Association Publications I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy. Download Education J.D., Hofstra University School of Law B.A., Brandeis University Bar Admissions New Jersey New York Court Admissions Supreme Court of New Jersey U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

News Steve Kim Obtains a Favorable Verdict in a Challenging Workplace TBI Trial (NJ) January 6, 2025 < Back Share to: Defending complex cases often requires navigating a maze of facts, legal nuances, and emotional narratives. Recently, Steve Kim represented our client in a workplace injury case in New Jersey that tested the limits of what can be accomplished through preparation, teamwork, and a commitment to presenting the truth. The matter of Jose A. Fernandez Martinez v. Pokora Wieslaw d/b/a W J Construction involved a plaintiff alleging severe injuries sustained during two separate workplace incidents. The claims ranged from traumatic brain injuries to spinal disc herniations, with demands suggesting significant exposure. Adding complexity, our client, the property owner, was the sole remaining defendant after other parties defaulted. Our defense focused on highlighting the plaintiff’s comparative fault and exposing inconsistencies in his account of the events and the injuries alleged. Evidence showed that the plaintiff failed to adhere to basic safety protocols, such as wearing a hardhat despite his training. Through expert testimony and thorough cross-examination, we demonstrated significant gaps in the plaintiff’s version of events and raised serious questions about the severity and causation of the alleged injuries. Procedural victories during the trial further reinforced our position, enabling us to present a strong and cohesive defense. The jury composition, combined with the clarity of our arguments and the strength of our evidence, maintained a defense-friendly trajectory in a traditionally challenging venue. After a thorough presentation of evidence and arguments, the case concluded with a favorable defense outcome, with plaintiff's award against our client being less than 10% of plaintiff's last demand before trial. Previous Next Steve J. Kim Steve J. Kim Partner +1 212 267 1900 skim@wcmlaw.com Contact

News Preservation of Appellate Review – Is It Waived? July 21, 2023 < Back Share to: Dupree v. Younger, Case Number 22-210 (May 25, 2023) addresses the preservation of legal issues for appellate review. In Dupree, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a summary judgment motion “allows the district court to take first crack at the question that the appellate court will ultimately face: Was there sufficient evidence in the trial record to support the jury’s verdict?” The court also found that “[b]ecause the factual record developed at trial supersedes the record existing at the time of the summary judgment motion, it follows that a party must raise a sufficiency [of the evidence] claim in a post-trial motion in order to preserve it for appeal.” The court further found that a “repeat-motion requirement” would be an “empty exercise,” where the averse ruling is based on a purely legal issue because “a purely legal question is, by definition, one whose answer is independent of disputed facts” and, thus, “factual development at trial will not change the district court’s answer.” Applying this reasoning to the case at hand, the Dupree Court unanimously held that where an averse pretrial ruling is based on a purely legal issue, a litigant need not, to preserve the issue for appellate review, re-raise the issue at or after trial. The Take Away. Be careful! While Dupree eliminates the need to re-raise averse rulings on purely legal issues; to avoid waiver, and preserve appellate review of fact-based issues, one must re-raise the fact-based issue(s) at trial and by post-trial motion. Thanks to Charles "Chip" George for this post. Please contact Chip with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Conclusory Allegations of Bad Faith Against Insurer Insufficient to Survive Motion to Dismiss (PA) January 8, 2021 < Back Share to: Recently, in Daniel Dietz v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether the factual averments in the plaintiff’s complaint were sufficient to overcome Liberty Mutual Insurance Company’s partial motion to dismiss Dietz’s bad faith claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By way of brief background, Dietz was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a driver who was insured by Farmers’ Insurance Company. At the time of the accident, Dietz was insured under an automobile policy issued by Liberty. On behalf of Dietz, Liberty obtained a settlement; unfortunately, the settlement was insufficient to cover all of Dietz’s medical expenses from the accident. Accordingly, Dietz submitted an underinsured motorist claim (“UIM”) with Liberty, which Liberty ultimately denied. Subsequently, Liberty offered to settle the UIM claim; however, Dietz rejected the proposed settlement as he believed Liberty erroneously did not obtain an additional stacking waiver when Dietz added a fifth vehicle to his automobile policy. After Liberty denied Dietz’s request for a copy of Liberty’s underwriting file, Dietz commenced the instant action, alleging claims for a declaratory judgment, breach of contract and bad faith. In support of its motion to dismiss, Liberty argued Dietz failed to state a bad faith claim upon which relief can be granted. In consideration of 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371 through the lens of the Court’s well-established standard of review, the Court determined Dietz failed to plead a claim for bad faith as the complaint contained no factual content indicating Liberty lacked a reasonable basis for denying his claim and that Dietz failed to show it either knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of reasonable basis. In addition, the Court concluded Dietz’s complaint, as pleaded, asks the Court to infer Liberty’s motive in refusing to produce its underwriting file was to deceive Dietz. Further, the Court cited other reasons why Liberty could have refused to produce a copy of its underwriting file, such as the fact that underwriting files often contain confidential business information. As the Court held the complaint failed to make any real factual averments, the Court granted Liberty’s motion and dismissed Dietz’s claim for bad faith. Ultimately, this case is a reminder of impact motions to dismiss can have on litigation in federal courts, and the premium courts place on well-pled complaints. Thanks to Lauren Berenbaum for her contribution to this post. Please contact Heather Aquino with any questions. Previous Next Contact

News Erupting Toilets In Mall Found To Be The Act of God February 15, 2011 < Back Share to: In Abarca v. Clark Shoes, et al., the plaintiff was the manager of a Coach store, located in the Queens Center Mall. In July of 2007, a large storm hit Queens, causing severe flooding within many of the mall's stores. The toilet in the Clark Shoes store, located above the Coach store, erupted, causing severe flooding that leaked down into the Coach store. The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping on this puddle. The lower court dismissed the claims against the owner of the mall. The Second Department affirmed that decision, finding that the storm was an act of God and that the resulting damage was unforeseeable. Thanks to Georgia G. Stagias for her contribution to this post. http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00992.htm Previous Next Contact

News Reality or Wishful Thinking: Is the Admitted Market About to Get Hammered? February 15, 2011 < Back Share to: The softness of the current insurance market has impacted everyone. One specific way in which it has impacted the E&S market is that admitted carriers (to increase premium intake) have underwritten risks that usually reverted to the E&S market. Some professionals believe that the worm is about to turn as the admitted carriers flee the newly written risks because of bad loss ratios -- http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/02/10/184165.htm. The question is -- when? And to that question, no-one knows the answer. For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com . Previous Next Contact

News WCM Philadelphia Partner Becomes Treasurer of Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel June 30, 2021 < Back Share to: On June 21, 2021, WCM Partner Colleen E. Hayes was elected to the position of Treasurer of the Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, one of the oldest local defense organizations in the country. Colleen is a partner in WCM’s Philadelphia office and serves clients in commercial coverage related matters. Colleen was also recently selected as a Pennsylvania Rising Star for 2021. She also is on the DRI’s Young Lawyers Steering Committee. Previous Next Contact