Personal Injury › Constitutional Law › Insurance

Covenant Judgments in Washington – Reasonableness Determined on Five Days’ Notice to the Insurer and Without a Jury: Bird v. Best...

In Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Wash. No. 86109-9 (October 25, 2012), the Washington Supreme Court held that: (1) insurers have no constitutional right to a jury determination of whether...more

Florida Supreme Court Rules on Conflict Between Hospital Liens and Insurance Coverage in a Car Accident Case: Shands Teaching...

After a woman received an insurance settlement for injuries she sustained in a car accident, a dispute arose between the insurance company and the hospital that treated her over payment of the hospital’s lien. In many...more

Legal Byte: Inconsistent & Alternative Pleading to Trigger Insurance Coverage

Can a plaintiff plead inconsistent theories of relief/liability, such as negligence (which is unintentional) and fraud (which is intentional), for any reason, including for the purpose of triggering insurance coverage?...more

N.N.

Damage from permanent disability

At the next joint of a person who as suffered severe injures as a result af an accident it is compensation for non patrimonial damages suffered as a result of the event,which must also include the beat.Evidence of such damage...more

Oliver v Smith et al.

Michigan Court of Appeals Extends "Good Faith" Immunity to Intentional Torts of Assault and Battery and Excessive Force

Oliver v. Smith, attached, is a “published” Court of Appeals opinion that extends the Supreme Court’s “good faith” standard established in the 2008 Odom v Wayne County decision, a case which I...more

Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Caps on Damages

This is a description of the Illinois Supreme Court's recent decision holding that the statutory caps on non-economic damages awarded in medical malpractice cases is unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers...more

Melnichenko v. Dashosh

PLAINTIFF'S AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & REPLY AFFIRMATION IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF...

The instant affirmation addresses three issues: a) Whether VTL §388 is constitutional. Defendants CAB EAST LLC and JAGUAR CREDIT CORPORATION are vicariously liable under VTL §388 because the State and Federal Courts of...more

Melnichenko v. Dashosh

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This Memorandum of Law was submitted in opposition to Defendants’ Cross-Motion for an Order granting Summary Judgment seeking an order that VTL §388 should be found unconstitutional. As stated herein and in the Affirmation...more