Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

News Philly Once Again a Judicial "Hellhole" February 2, 2018 < Back Share to: The American Tort Reform Foundation's Judicial "Hellholes program" surveys the civil courts and identifies areas where “judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner.” Recently. Philadelphia ranked #5 in the country on the top hell hole list. The reason for this dishonorable ranking is largely due to three large product liability actions, including Risperdal, Xarelto, and the Pelvic Mesh case, as well as an increase in asbestos litigation. The pending Risperdal suits (an antipsychotic drug which allegedly caused gynecomastia) tripled from the start of 2017 through November after four juries returned verdicts over $70 million. However, the ATFR noted that some cases resulted in summary judgment; two judges threw out Risperdal lawsuits mid-trial, and one judge found that punitive damages are not available for Risperdal suits. It seems Philly juries are the cause for concern and not the bench. The Pelvic Mesh cases demonstrate that plaintiffs seek out Philadelphia as a venue, even if they are not from Pennsylvania, due to the large verdicts. In fact, ATFR determined that only 19% of the plaintiffs were actually from Philadelphia. In April 2017, Johnson and Johnson was hit with a $20 million verdict by an out-of-state plaintiff and another recent verdict was for $57.1 million. The good news is that the judiciary appears to have taken a more active role in denying interlopers from seeking out Pennsylvania as a plaintiff friendly venue; the bad news (for civil defendants) is that juries continue to render outrageous awards. Thanks to Ellis Palividas for his contribution to this post and please write to Mike Bono with any questions. Previous Next Contact

Casualty Defense When confronted with a “heavy” casualty case, our clients often ask us, “What do you know about plaintiffs’ attorney?” Just as reputation is an important factor in risk assessment, so, too, is the reputation of defense counsel. WCM enjoys a reputation as a firm of trial lawyers prepared to go the distance. And it is that very reputation among the plaintiff’s bar that fosters excellent results in negotiations, court-order settlement conference and private mediations. WCM lawyers don’t push paper or “process” files, we think strategically and how best to advance our client’s position at every stage of the litigation. Our relentless advocacy begins at case intake and continues until the matter is closed. As a regional firm, we try cases across the entire casualty spectrum, from products to premises, in state and federal courts in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And, in fact, our reputation as skilled advocates has prompted the admission, pro hac vice, of WCM lawyers in many jurisdictions across the country. WCM acts for national and international insureds and self-insurers in matters ranging across the broad reach of tort liability. Partnering with our clients, we have achieved unparalleled success in developing creative approaches to defending actions across all significant risk categories: Premises, Auto, Trucking, Construction, Dram Shop/Liquor Liability, Restaurant/Tavern Owners, Hotel, Security/Loss Prevention, Elevator, Sports and Recreation, Entertainment/Facilities Management, Day/Elder Care, Waste Management, Sick Building Syndrome and Toxic Exposures. The courtroom savvy of WCM lawyers is matched by a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between statutory (Labor Law, OSHA, BOCA) considerations and common law practices. In addition, the firm’s well-recognized insurance expertise gives our clients the comfort of knowing that risk transfer, additional insured, and indemnity issues are understood and appropriately managed. But regardless of the contest, WCM puts our clients first and we always seek the cleanest and most efficient solutions to the risks they face. Practice Lead Brian Gibbons Partner +1 332 345 7164 bgibbons@wcmlaw.com Download Download

News Vague E-mails not a "Signed Writing" under Copyright Act (NY) November 16, 2009 < Back Share to: Under the Copyright Act, the transfer of an exclusive license, including a license for distribution of a copyrighted work, must be effected through a signed writing from the copyright owner or its agent. The Copyright Act grants copyright owners a number of “exclusive rights,” including the right to distribute the work “to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(3). Recently, in Weinstein Co. v. Smokewood Entertainment Group, LLC, plaintiff alleged defendant had conveyed the exclusive right to distribute a movie owned by the defendant through a series of confirmatory e-mails regarding the deal. When the defendant instead conveyed distribution rights to another company, plaintiff filed suit in federal district court, New York. Briefly, the substance of plaintiff’s e-mails were, “We are pleased to confirm our deal.” While the defendant’s responses were not outright rejections of plaintiff’s claims, the defendant commented on remaining, unsettled, details regarding the negotiations. The Court held that if a copyright owner's intention in writing is unclear -- even deliberately so -- there is no legally valid transfer. The purpose of the signed writing requirement is to ensure that the copyright owner deliberately transfers its ownership interest in such a way that provides the parties with a clear guide to their rights and responsibilities. Because the e-mails between the parties here failed to accomplish that, the Court dismissed the Complaint. If you would like more information regarding this post, please email mbono@wcmlaw.com . http://pdf.wcmlaw.com/pdf/einstein%20decision.pdf Previous Next Contact

News Is the Value of Art Going Down? January 16, 2013 < Back Share to: Given our fine arts practice, we are tuned in to market value fluctuations since those fluctuations often dictate what an insurer must pay when a covered loss occurs. If this recent article is to be believed, the value of art is beginning to go down. If true, this could be good news for insurers. For more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at rcosgrove@wcmlaw.com .   Previous Next Contact

There’s Nothing Here... We can’t find the page you’re looking for. Check the URL, or head back home. Go Home

News Eagles Win! February 12, 2018 < Back Share to: Some of you may have heard that the Philadelphia Eagles just won their first Super Bowl. It's kind of a big deal down here in Philadelphia. So for those who have interest in such things, enjoy the pictures of the Eagles' celebratory parade that our very own Clayton Thomas took from our office windows. Previous Next Contact

News Do CGL Policies Now Insure Data Breaches? April 29, 2016 < Back Share to: The case that everyone is talking about is Travelers Indemnity v. Portal Health, a just released, unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion. The quick story is that the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court opinion and held that Travelers owed coverage (specifically defense) under a CGL policy for a data breach. The real story is a bit more nuanced. In the case, Portal Healthcare, a Virginia based company, was sued in NY in a class action lawsuit. In the lawsuit, patients of Glen Falls Hospital claimed that Portal Healthcare failed to safeguard medical records entrusted to Portal Healthcare by the hospital and instead allowed those records to be posted on the internet – accessible to everyone via a Google search. Portal Healthcare was insured by Travelers under two consecutive commercial general liability insurance policies – a 2012 policy and a 2013 policy. The Policies were not standard policies – rather they contained special endorsements that expanded the scope of personal injury, advertising injury and web site injury. Specifically, the 2012 Policy contained a Web Xtend Liability Endorsement that deleted and replaced the definition of Personal and Advertising Injury liability. The 2013 Policy contained an Amendment of Coverage B – Personal And Advertising Liability Endorsement that deleted and replaced the definition of Personal and Advertising Injury liability. Under both endorsements, the parties (and court) seemed to agree that coverage was triggered if the underlying complaint alleged: (1) injury arising out of the offense of “electronic publication of material that . . . gives unreasonable publicity to a person’s private life” (the language utilized in the insuring agreement of the 2012 Policy) or (2) injury caused by the offense of “electronic publication of material that . . . discloses information about a person’s private life” (the language utilized in the insuring agreement of the 2013 Policy). In respect of the first point, Travelers argued that, although the data was available to the general public, since Portal Healthcare did not intend to publish it, publication did not occur. This argument was rejected by the court which held that it was the fact of publication (and not the intent of publisher) that mattered. In respect of the second point, Travelers argued that there was no “publicity” given to a person’s private life as the leak was not intended to generate publicity. This argument was also rejected by the court which held that since the leaked data was available to the general public, publicity had occurred. All of this seems rather straightforward, so why all the fuss? It seems that a top sheet review might be to blame. When you look at the trial court’s decision and the policies themselves, you see that the Travelers’ decision to broaden the scope of potential claims that would qualify as “personal and advertising injury” is the root cause of the decision. So, it’s true that CGL policies might have more potential exposure to data breaches – but only if you enhance the coverages. For more information about this post please e-mail Bob Cosgrove. Previous Next Contact