Roy A. Mura’s Post

Let’s Go Mets!

Congrats to my partner, J. Christine Chiriboga, for obtaining a 24-minute no-cause/defense verdict for our pizzeria owner client in a slip-n-fall case after a 5-day jury trial in Erie County Supreme Court! Plaintiff's attorney asked for $400K. The jury awarded $0. And kudos to the you-know-who-you-are upstate New York commercial liability insurance company that stayed the course and allowed us to achieve today's outcome for your 50-years-in-business insured. "You can make lemonade out of lemons, but you can't make chocolate ice cream out of shit", someone once said, right Christine? 😉 Mura Law Group, PLLC

"With the help of a third, unnamed person, the roommates carried the body to the front seat of the dead man's car so bank staff could see him, and drove to the familiar bank branch, where they withdrew an undisclosed amount, the chief said." #WeekendAtBernies #ArtMeetsLife?

Who can tell me how I can tell this FB account is fake? #dontbesoobviousscammers

So they toss Christmas trees instead of cabers in Ireland? From the story: A woman’s $820,000 insurance claim for “disabling” injuries has been dismissed after a photo emerged of her participating in a Christmas tree throwing competition — which she won — less than a year after her alleged injuries were sustained. * * * * * Judge Carmel Stewart, who dismissed the case, said the “very graphic picture” played a role in her decision. “It is a very large, natural Christmas tree and it is being thrown by her in a very agile movement,” she said, the Irish Independent reported, according to The Guardian. “I’m afraid I cannot but conclude the claims were entirely exaggerated,” the judge added. “On that basis, I propose to dismiss the claim." Grabska argued that she was still in pain while participating in the competition, according to SWNS. She also said she quit her job after the crash and subsequently collected disability. * * * * * Lawyers for both parties did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment. 😏 H/t to Diana Maskell. #insurancefraud

Not charged with insurance fraud because he didn't file a claim. Not charged with filing a false police report because "the man was so severely injured from the incident that it would have been an arduous process to have him in jail." No word of whether the hatchet man (literally in this case) was charged with anything. And the brush hog was cleared of any wrongdoing and maintained its un-defeeted operating record. "It was a poorly executed plan," Howell County (MO) Sheriff's Office Lieutenant and Master of the Understatement Torey Thompson said. #insurancefraud #gottabeaneasierwaytomakemoney #theagonyofthefeet

Woah... There goes my professional liability premium. "At issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff, a retrocessional insurer (i.e., the reinsurer of a reinsurer), may maintain a legal malpractice claim against defendants, the lawyers representing the insured in an underlying personal injury action. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that plaintiff, having paid out on the settlement on behalf of the insured in the underlying action, has standing to assert a claim for legal malpractice against defendants under the theory of equitable subrogation." "As to defendants' arguments that plaintiff failed to state a claim pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), a complaint for legal malpractice must allege the negligence of the attorney, that the negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, and actual damages (Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266, 267 [1st Dept 2006], affd 9 NY3d 836 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1257 [2008]). Here, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that the alleged malpractice was the proximate cause of the loss it suffered in having to pay almost $2.8 million on behalf of Tower B towards the settlement in the underlying action. ➡️⚠️Plaintiff set forth facts sufficient to show the potential merit of the third-party complaint in the underlying action, and defendants' allegedly negligent and unauthorized discontinuance of that action⚠️⬅️ (see Fletcher v Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 75 AD3d 469, 469 [1st Dept 2010])." #reinsurance #retrocessionalinsurer #reinsurerofreinsurer #legalmalpracticeexposure #becarefulouttheredefenseattorneys

Feb. 15, 2024 ~~ In a unanimous opinion that should surprise no one--even policyholder attorneys--the NY Court of Appeals today AFFIRMED the pre-answer dismissal on motion of the policyholder's action for business income losses allegedly sustained during New York State's and New York City's "Stay at Home" shutdown orders during COVID-19, introducing its opinion with: "This appeal presents the question of whether allegations that SARS-Co-V-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 ('coronavirus' or 'virus'), was present in insured restaurants and resulted in cessation of in-person dining services and related business interruption losses are sufficient to state a claim for 'direct physical loss or damage,' as that phrase is used in plaintiff’s property insurance policy. ➡️⚠️We hold that direct physical loss or damage requires a material alteration or a complete and persistent dispossession of insured property, which petitioner has not alleged. We therefore affirm the order below dismissing the complaint.⚠️⬅️" * * * * * "Even generously construed to allege that various surfaces in the restaurants became vectors for transmission of the coronavirus, CRO 'fails to identify . . . a single item that it had to replace, anything that changed, or that was actually damaged at any of its properties' (205 AD3d 76, 86). As the Appellate Division found, '[n]othing stopped working” (id.). And the allegations themselves confirm that the presence of the coronavirus was temporary.'" The Court ended with a longstanding principle of insurance contract interpretation that I WISH more Supreme Court judges would follow: "We do not take lightly the severe economic losses incurred by restaurants and other businesses serving the public as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. ➡️⚠️But our task is to faithfully interpret the terms of the insurance policy before us, not to 'rewrite the language of the polic[y] at issue' to reach a result with “equitable appeal”⚠️⬅️ (Fieldston Prop. Owners Assn., Inc. v Hermitage Ins. Co., Inc., 16 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]). The coverage provisions relied upon by CRO only cover economic losses to the extent they are caused by 'direct physical loss or damage' to insured property. We conclude that the business interruption caused by the actual presence of the coronavirus on the premises of CRO’s insured property, as alleged in the complaint, is insufficient to trigger such coverage." #directphysicallossordamage #covidbilitigation #commercialpropertyinsurance

Lot of moving pieces in this one... Not only were the policyholders examined under oath, but their public adjuster, Scotty Moland of Tailored Loss Consultants, was as well. The policyholders claim not to know why, and their requests for a copy of the transcript of that EUO have gone unanswered. Their PA claims not to have asked for a copy but not received it. From the article: Last year, [the policyholders' attorney, David] Sholl argued that every Southwest Florida homeowner should partner with a public adjuster-attorney team to collectively challenge their insurance companies. “They come in with a whole team of people in their interest to determine, how can I say this… You should never rely on the person who has to pay you money to tell you how much they owe you. You should have your own team of people telling you how much that person owes you,” said Sholl.

"Premiums have tripled in the past five years, making homeownership an increasingly unaffordable option for people living in southwest Florida. In a WINK News special report, Investigative Reporter Céline McArthur travels to Tallahassee to track down lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats — to find out if anyone has a long-term solution." #FLpropertyinsurance