Comments for blog.cuyler.com

Comment on Countersuing Your Attorney For Legal Malpractice: A Real Case Of A Disastrous Strategy by l8in

l8in — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:10:22 +0000

interesting that the people who behave the worst are those in the legal and academic professions.

Comment on Appellate Division Sides with Insurer in Denying Coverage in Sex Abuse Case by Blake Palmer

Blake Palmer — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:53:23 +0000

NJ Court Rules Part II govern appeals to the New Jersey Supreme Court from a final judgment of the Appellate Division. In this case there appears no basis for further appellate review as of right, and thus review by the Supreme Court would require the Supreme Court to review it on certification under Rule 2:12. Under Rule 2:12-3 a party seeking certification must file a petition for certification within 20 days from the entry of the Appellate Division ruling. A petition for certification is granted on the affirmative vote of 3 or more of the justices of the Supreme Court (New Jersey’s Supreme Court has 7 justices). R. 2:12-10. The applicable standard is that “[c]ertification will be granted only if the appeal presents a question of general public importance which has not been but should be settled by the Supreme Court or is similar to a question presented on another appeal to the Supreme Court; if the decision under review is in conflict with any other decision of the same or a higher court or calls for an exercise of the Supreme Court’s supervision and in other matters if the interest of justice requires….” R. 2:12-4. As you note, there would appear to be some conflict in New Jersey’s appellate case law regarding the applicability of homeowners insurance to torts involving sexual misconduct.

Comment on Crooker, Collins and Others Awarded Brownfields Honor by NASA Fan

NASA Fan — Fri, 02 May 2008 20:52:22 +0000

This is a good news report about a new NASA study.
CBS 4 Anchors Shomari Stone and Cynthia Demos introduced CNN’s Miles O’Brien. Take a look.

http://cbs4.com/video/?id=45597

Comment on Appellate Division Sides with Insurer in Denying Coverage in Sex Abuse Case by Rich Crooker

Rich Crooker — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:24:56 +0000

I will wait to see how the substance of this ruling is addressed at the Supreme Court level (in this or a subsequent case) before expressing confidence that this holding will be the law. Reasons include (a) whether a “subjective” or “objective” standard of intent is applied, the record on the husband’s intent is difficult to square with the burden typically required for a finding of noncoverage under these provisions — the real facts are not reported, but the opinion gives no suggestion of any evidence of actual knowledge or culpability on his part; (b) the Supreme Court may have a different opinion on whether an innocent homeowner would “reasonably expect” coverage for allegations of negligence notwithstanding that the direct cause of harm was unquestionably criminal behavior by others within the home, even if the perpetrator was the insured’s spouse not entitled to coverage under the circumstances; and (c) the Supreme Court may have a different opinion on whether the availability of coverage for the innocent spouse would incentivize or disincentivize that person from reporting sexual misconduct by a spouse when discovered. Maybe we’ll find out. Do you know if certification is being sought?

Comment on Wrongful Death in New Jersey - Not Today by Rich Crooker

Rich Crooker — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:21:19 +0000

Jaclyn - Thanks for the update. Below is one letter sent in opposition to the Bill the Governor vetoed. Obviously, many people expressed similar concerns. In particular, I assume that beyond the health-care providers the Governor referenced in his veto-statement, those opponents included NJ citizens who develop pharmaceuticals and other vital often life-sustaining products. I do not see how vesting the courts with “flexibility” would ultimately serve as a reasonable check on the problems this poses and would be interested in any elaboration you have seen on that aspect. I believe Governor Corzine did the right thing in vetoing the proposed expansion of recovery and that those who seek this change should have a rigorous burden of showing by clear proof that the benefits of doing so will substantially outweigh the harm.

Letter was as follows:

“Governor Corzine:

The Bar Association supports this, but the League of Municipalities opposes it unless modified to exclude public entities from this kind of liability. That ought be enough said about why it shouldn’t be enacted into law by a Governor seeking to eliminate the burden of crushing cost of living, debt and taxes on our citizens, but there is so much more to be said.

As I the read the Bill, whenever somebody dies from a tort, if the decedent has one or more surviving spousal, direct-blood or legally-adopted relatives who experienced grief over the death, each of those survivors could now be entitled to subjective, largely-unpredictable damages. That liability would not be directly dependent on whether death was caused by an intentional murder (for which the law already provides powerful remedies to the State and punitive damages to the estate of the victim, although most murders cannot pay and there’s no insurance) or strict product liability (to be liable there is no requirement that the manufacturer of a product, including vital medical products, have any “fault”, but manufacturers are perceived as having lots of money to pay damages). Rather, it would be based on the susceptibility of the survivors to grief.

The horror stories, now newly-admissable in court, would seem limited only by the myriad and gut-wrenching ways we as human beings experience the pain associated with every death of a loved one. Acceptance of reality, emotional strength, and stoicism in the face of adversity, traditional virtues in American culture, would be disincentivized.

It’s obvious that the law cannot ameliorate the pain of death of loved ones. This law is based, plain and simply, on visions of a new and limitless pool of claims, each with their own story of grief to tell, or to defend against, which has set the Bar to salivating over fees.

As a lawyer whose business, in part, is associated with the tort system, I probably stand to make money if this Bill is passed, but, as a citizen, I believe this is a terrible idea, particularly at this time in a state with historically high insurance rates, brutal local taxes, and a dismal reputation among the business community, which also happens to be hemorrhaging productive citizens.

Please DONT sign S-176. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Crooker”

Comment on Turf War?? by Chris Alviggi

Chris Alviggi — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:02:46 +0000

An insurance companies duty to defend is much broader than its duty to indemnify. It would be prudent to mitigate exposure to loss at contract execution rather than scrambling post loss. Pre loss mitigation can include but not limited to contract negotiation including tightening up on indemnity provisions and more importantly survival of those indemnity obligations. Additionally clients may may to make sure the General Liabilty policy contains an absolute pollution exclusion with a “carve out” for products pollution. If not attainable, clients or suppliers of the field could purchase a contractors pollution liability insurance policy which will provide indemnity and defense obligations after the project is accepted by the owner. As as alternative, owners could purchase a pollution legal liability which will provide the owner with dedicated limits and more importantly, contains an absolute duty to defend the owner.

Comment on What a Way to Break the Ice… by Frederick Johnson

Frederick Johnson — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:43:35 +0000

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about “Breaking the Ice.” I found your story be not only funny, but very informative. Public speaking is by far one of the most intimidating and stressful events. However, by overcoming that fear, I found that you tend to become more confident in other aspects of your life beyond speaking in public. Thanks and I really enjoyed your blog.

Comment on You Don’t Have to Split the Baby by China Law Evolving — Businesses Take Note, Part VI | Top China Suppliers

Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:13:34 +0000

[...] (and the Courts always seem to come up with pretty good reasons), Chinese judges tend to “split the baby” on damages much more often than do American [...]