SawStop Technology Can Save Your Fingers!

Tablesaw safety continues to make headlines and woodworkers fearing injuries should take note about the latest legal and government developments.

The question that is being asked, and I think it is a good question, is whether the government should REQUIRE tablesaw manufacturers to use safer technology when that technology is available and feasible?

Many of my friends answer “Hell no, keep guv’mint out of my business” while other friends answer “Hell yes, this is the perfect role of government to enforce safety standards to protect people”.

I have to confess that I am in the “Hell Yes” camp because unfortunately tablesaw manufacturers have historically demonstrated that they will NOT voluntarily adopt the safest technology.  Because of that, and because I see first-hand the devastating effects of bad injuries, I tend to support anything that results in fewer innocent people getting hurt.

That’s why I support past safety regulations that have resulted in much greater public safety.  Things like seatbelts and airbags in cars have resulted in fewer deaths and less catastrophic injuries.  Years ago, seatbelts were non-existent, then a rare exception.  But it wasn’t until seatbelts were REQUIRED that we widespread adoption of this safety device. No one today would argue that requiring seatbelts was a bad thing.

And that’s why I am in favor of the government requiring all saw manufacturers to adopt SawStop (or something equivalent) safety technology.

In a perfect world, these tablesaw manufacturers would build safer saws because they can and because they truly care about the safety of their customers.  However, we don’t live in a perfect world and corporate design decisions often come down to profits and the least expensive way to build a product.  Unfortunately, touting your saw as the safer saw isn’t nearly as touting your saw as being cheaper than your competition’s product.

Normally, one place where manufacturers end up paying for their decision to build an unsafe product is in the courtroom.  In the courtroom, a manufacturer who builds an unsafe product when there are safer, feasible alternatives, can be required to pay substantial verdicts.

Historically, tablesaw manufacturers have avoided liability because they have all built their saws in essentially the same way and have then banded together in the courtroom to say the way they build their saws is to the “industry standard”.  They essentially claim that this industry standard is “the best we can do because everyone in the industry does it that way”.  They then claim other designs are not feasible, or not practical, or more expensive…..

For years, the conspiracy of the table-saw manufacturers was successful in avoid liability but recently the tide turned in a very important table-saw case.

A federal appeals court in Massachusetts has upheld $1.5 million in damages to an insurance company so it could recover expenses from Ryobi’s parent company in the case of Carlos Osorio, a flooring installer who suffered a hand injury in 2005 while using a Ryobi table saw, according to Fine Woodworking magazine.

Dr. Stephen Gass, the inventor of SawStop, testified on Osorio’s behalf in the lawsuit against Ryobi, saying none of the major table saw manufacturers, including Ryobi, had adopted his safety technology. With SawStop, the blade instantly senses when it comes in contact with skin and the blade snaps out of sight before any serious damage can be done to a person’s body.

Osorio’s table saw did not have the SawStop technology and the district court, citing safety concerns, ruled in his favor based on Gass’s testimony.

The federal appeals court’s October ruling supporting the district court can be found here.

An interview with Stephen Gass, the inventor of SawStop, is here.

Also in October, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously to propose new table saw safety standards. Read a news story about that decision here. And the actual CPSC decision is here.

I recently wrote about my experience in buying a SawStop table saw. Yes, they are more expensive, but itsn’t the safety of the woodworkers in your family worth it?

SawStop works. As I said in my last post, I encourage all of my woodworking friends in Elmira, Corning and the Twin Tiers to check out the latest in safety technology.

Please, be safe out there.  Always put safety first, even if it costs you more than you wanted to spend.

Thanks for reading.

Thanks, Jim

_________________________________

James B. Reed

NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer

Ziff Law Firm, LLP

Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com

Office: (607)733-8866

Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)

Web: www.zifflaw.com

Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and

NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

Related articles

• Consumer agency pushes for safety rules for table saws (usatoday.com)
• Govt looks for ways to reduce table saw injuries (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

State police said a Texas man was driving drunk when he killed an Elmira woman Friday.

This is just what many in the area feared when the influx of out-of-state gas workers began – an increase in the number of alcohol-related accidents. Now I certainly don’t mean to stereotype or malign every gas worker, but there is a sizable number of new workers in the area who work long hours, make a good wage, who are far from home, and who want to blow off some steam during the hours they aren’t working.

It looks like the volatile mixture of alcohol and driving resulted in the tragic death of an Elmira woman ….

WETM and the Star-Gazette have reported that Lauralee M. Widmer, 36, of Elmira, and formerly of Louisiana, was killed early Friday morning in a two-vehicle accident in Tioga County, Pa.

State police said Brandon C. Davidson, 32, of Perryton, Texas, was driving a pickup truck shortly before 8 a.m. Friday in Jackson Township when he lost control of his truck and crossed the center line on the two-lane highway, striking a sport utility vehicle driven by Widmer.

Police said Widmer was wearing a seat belt and Davidson, who suffered only minor injuries, was not wearing a seat belt.

Widmer was pronounced dead at the scene and Davidson was treated for minor injuries at a Wellsboro hospital and released.

Davidson was charged with Homicide by Vehicle While Driving Under the Influence, Driving Under the Influence, Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road, Speeding, Careless Driving, Reckless Driving and Not Wearing a Seat Belt, according to the Star-Gazette.  He was arraigned and sent to the county jail in lieu of $75,000 cash bail.

Given the very aggravated circumstances of this collision– the drunken driving, the recklessness, the speeding, etc.– Widmer’s Estate could bring not only a wrongful death lawsuit but could also assert a claim for punitive damages.  Punitive damages are not permitted in all injury lawsuits but are limited to those lawsuits where it can be proven that the defendant’s conduct was grossly negligent, reckless and showed a conscious disregard for the rights of others.  The general standard in New York for punitive damages is reckless conduct or grossly negligent conduct that endangers the health, safety and well-being of the public.  NY Pattern Jury Instructions, 2:278.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Widmer’s family.

Thanks for reading.

Jim
__________________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607) 733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

New York State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schak just might win the award for “Most Entertaining Decision in 2011″.  Of course, It doesn’t hurt that Judge Schak’s decision from King’s County in Taveras v. American Transit Insurance Company, 2011 NY Slip Op. 51831, does outstanding justice by holding an insurance company accountable for bad faith practices — something that happens all too often but is rarely brought to light.

This is how the decision begins:

In this insurance bad faith action the conduct of defendant AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY (AT) reminds the Court of the testimony given by Jack Nicholson’s character, Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup, in the 1991 film, A Few Good Men. When examined by a defense attorney, the Tom Cruise character, Navy Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, about whether Colonel Jessup ordered the hazing of a Marine, which went awry, at the Guantanamo Bay Naval [*2]Base, the lawyer and witness had the following colloquy:

Col. Jessup:You want answers?

Lt. Kaffee:I think I’m entitled to them.

Col. Jessup:You want answers?

Lt. Kaffee:I want the truth!

Col. Jessup:You can’t handle the truth!

Defendant AT, in the instant action, refuses not only to acknowledge the truth, but to handle the truth!

The gist of the case is that American Transit represented for many years to several people injured in a car wreck that it insured the driver who caused the crash.  At trial, the injured people said they were willing to settle the case within the amount of the negligent driver’s policy.  However, the company refused to settle despite overwhelming evidence in favor of the injured people.  At the end of trial, the jury returned a verdict far, far in excess of the negligent driver’s policy.

The result?  An award of $2,250,000 for the driver against his own insurance company for bad faith. 

This type of bad faith activity is not exclusive to New York City.  In Upstate New York, prosecution of our auto and injury cases also include fights with insurance companies as they attempt to engage in bad faith practices too frequently, keeping injured people from receiving due compensation and putting negligent parties at great financial risk.

Great job, Judge Schak.  It’s about time these companies were held accountable.

Thanks for reading!
_________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web:zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com

Speak No Evil says the Medical Community!

As a NY medical malpractice lawyer for more than 25 years, I am well aware of the “white-coat conspiracy of silence.”

This is an unwritten but well-known code of conduct that is routinely followed by doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, etc., that says:

“No matter what … never, ever, EVER … admit that one of your medical colleagues did anything wrong.”

A recent NY case against a Manhattan hospital turned that Code of Silence upside down when it ordered a doctor to turn over an email that he had written that was critical of the medical care provided to a patient. Needless to say, defense lawyers for the hospital who were claiming the medical care was OK screamed bloody murder and tried everything in their power to suppress this email so it would never see the light of day.

Here is a quick summary of the lawsuit, from a New York Law Journal article:

Rose Lowenthal, 89, died from post-operative developments two days after successful hip surgery at New York Downtown Hospital in December 2008.

Her surgeon, upset by her death, wrote an email to the chief of the hospital’s surgery department, criticizing Mrs. Lowenthal’s post-operative care.

Mrs. Lowenthal’s son filed suit in 2009 and the hospital refused to turn over the email, saying it was confidential because it was turned over to the hospital’s Quality Assurance Committee.

But a Manhattan Supreme Court justice rejected that argument, telling the hospital to turn over the email in the lawsuit because the hospital had not proved the email was written for the committee.

In an affidavit, the surgeon said he wrote the email on his own, and added that he was not invited to participate in the committee’s meeting or the morbidity and mortality meeting in Mrs. Lowenthal’s case.

The family’s lawyer, Scott Rubin of Levine and Grossman in Mineola, said the doctor’s unsolicited critical letter was the first of its kind he’d seen in more than 30 years of practice.

“Usually doctors don’t send letters excoriating departments or other doctors,” he said, adding with great understatement that the email “could be quite helpful to me.”

Why would the hospital’s lawyers be so upset by the disclosure of this email? Wouldn’t they want the truth to emerge? Wouldn’t they want to improve the medical care provided by the hospital?

Well, you would think so, but the reality of it is that these lawyers don’t want any doctor’s criticism of another doctor or medical provider to EVER see the light of day ….

I am glad the judge disagreed and ordered them to turn over the email!

Thanks for reading.

Jim
__________________________________________

James B. Reed
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
Mailto: jreed@zifflaw.com
Office: (607) 733-8866
Toll-Free: 800-ZIFFLAW (943-3529)
Web: www.zifflaw.com
Blogs: NYInjuryLawBlog.com and
NYBikeAccidentBlog.com

Leslie D. Kelmachter

Sometimes it is easy to forget all the good that is accomplished by lawsuits.  Seatbelts, airbags, fire retardant pajamas, safer workplaces, safer cars, safer roads….the list goes on and on…..our lives made safer as a direct result of lawsuits.

Sometimes we need a reminder and this week, two Upstate N.Y. newspapers published two excellent articles on this very issue.

Leslie Kelmachter, the president of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association made an impassioned and powerful defense of the power of lawsuits in two newspapers this month.

In the Aug. 11 Ithaca Journal, Leslie Kelmachter, argued in an op-ed that “eliminating workplace protections and punishing victims of negligence and their families” is not the way to stimulate New York’s economy and create jobs. Kelmachter wrote “Lawsuits Are Powerful Way To Get Justice For Consumers” in response to a Guest View the newspaper ran that argued that limiting victims’ rights to access the civil justice system would be good for New Yorkers.

In an Aug. 12 Letter to the Editor of The Buffalo News, Kelmachter again strongly rejected the argument to limit victims’ access. The writer of the Another Voice column said limiting legal access benefits New Yorkers, but Kelmachter correctly pointed out that “eliminating vital protections for workers and consumers only helps big business and hurts average New Yorkers.”

In the Ithaca newspaper, Kelmachter writes about the McDonald’s “Hot Coffee” lawsuit, a case made famous with a great documentary.

The 79-year-old victim’s lawsuit revealed that hundreds of people were burned by coffee that was too hot. The jury found McDonald’s at fault and it stopped making its coffee at dangerous temperatures.

As Kelmachter summarized in the Ithaca newspaper: “Corporations and their front groups, under the friendly sounding banner of ‘tort reform,’ paint the picture that those who want their day in court are abusing the civil justice system. But the trial-by-jury system is the time-honored means by which Americans hold our government and big corporations accountable. Preventable injuries cost all New Yorkers. Protecting workers and consumers makes New York a stronger state.”

Thanks for reading.

Jim

I can tell you that I have been trying injury lawsuits in Upstate N.Y. for more than 25 years, and when I am picking a jury, I am always confronted by the idea of “runaway juries” and “ridiculous verdicts” and the McDonald’s case is always advanced as the poster child for where the personal injury system has gone wrong.

Many times I have explained the true facts behind the McDonald’s case. When people hear what really went on, they understand exactly why the McDonald’s case isn’t crazy after all:

• I explain that the woman suffered horrible burns, leaving her with permanent scars.
• I explain how this particular McDonald’s purposely kept its coffee hotter than other McDonald’s despite previous people who were injured by the scalding coffee.
• I explain how the judge reduced the jury verdict for punitive damages from $2.7 million to $480,000.
• I explain that the legal system actually worked as it should in that case because ultimately McDonald’s was only ordered to pay an amount that was just and fair to the victim as well as an amount that was just and fair to McDonald’s.

But better than any explanation I can provide is a new movie called “Hot Coffee,” which tells the real tale behind the McDonald’s case. This movie is playing on HBO right now and I strongly urge you to watch it if you get the chance.

Don’t worry – the movie is actually much more interesting and entertaining than it sounds.

So you can learn more …

Here is the movie website and the HBO website.

To read an interview with the filmmaker, click here.

And here is the trailer for the movie:

Below I have pasted a recent review of the movie by noted lawyer Gerald L Shargel.

One thing I have learned as a trial lawyer is that there are ALWAYS two sides to every story, so it’s important that we always hear BOTH sides before reaching a final conclusion ….

Thanks for reading and please let me know what you think of the movie!

Thanks, Jim

From Gerald L. Shargel’s review:

“While there may be no reliable data about the number of frivolous lawsuits filed each year, the civil justice system is largely self-regulating and the vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are weeded out early. The initial filtering process is the assessment of the case by lawyers who often take cases on a contingency basis, earning a fee only if there is a recovery; lawyers understandably will avoid a case where the claim is unlikely to succeed. Even after a jury verdict, a judge has the right to modify a jury’s damage award if the evidence does not support it. In Stella Lieback’s hot coffee case against McDonald’s, the trial judge reduced the $2.7 million punitive damages verdict to $480,000, while compensatory damages were reduced from $200,000 to $160,000.

“Tort claims serve the public good. More than simply compensating victims, meritorious lawsuits can force corporate or individual defendants to change or modify the behavior that caused the harm or injury. Hot Coffee lends a strong voice to those who favor fundamental fairness in redressing well-founded claims.”

To see the full review, go here.

Related articles

• Must See TV: Hot Coffee Premieres on HBO on Monday 6/27 (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

The new shorter court schedule will be bad for Chemung County courts.

Thanks, Jim

It's up to you to be vigilant when you or someone you love faces surgery!

As a New York medical malpractice lawyer who has handled “wrong-site” surgery cases, I wasn’t too surprised to see the news report that estimates that 40 times a week (that’s more than 2,000 times a year!), doctors mistakenly operate on the wrong site.

Huh, the wrong site? Yup, that happens when a doctor is supposed to operate on a RIGHT knee and he operates on the LEFT knee. Or the doctor was supposed to operate on the left eye and he operates on the right. Can you say “Ooooooppppsss”?

But this is NOT funny. The victims of wrong-site surgery suffer all the dangers of surgery (bleeding, infection, scarring, disability, etc.) with none of the benefits of the surgery they were supposed to receive. In fact, many times, the patient is so weakened by the wrong-site surgery that they don’t have the strength to undergo the surgery they were supposed to have.

The Washington Post reported this week that seven years after the Joint Commission, the group that accredits our nation’s hospitals, unveiled mandatory rules to prevent surgery errors, the problem may actually be getting worse!

The good news is that progressive hospitals and doctors are implementing strategies to combat wrong-site surgery, according to the report. Some strategies are simple: require the doctor to physically mark the site of the surgery during the pre-operative preparation; make both doctors and nurses double-check one another as to the proper site of the surgery, and so on.

Medicare is also creating a very strong incentive for doctors and hospitals to ensure that they do not perform surgery at the wrong site by refusing to pay any of the expenses associated with the incorrect surgery. Nothing like hitting someone in the pocketbook to make them pay attention!

And finally, the prospect of an expensive medical malpractice lawsuit is also a strong deterrent to this sloppy mistake that simply shouldn’t occur. In NY and PA, where I routinely practice, it is medical malpractice for a doctor to perform surgery at the wrong site because the standard of care for proper surgical practice always requires the surgeon to confirm the proper site for surgery BEFORE operating.

According to the Washington Post report, based on state data, Joint Commission officials estimate that wrong-site surgery occurs 40 times a week in U.S. hospitals and clinics. In 2010 alone, 93 cases were reported to the accrediting organization, compared with 49 in 2004.

“Attention to the problem comes at a time of increased focus on the broader issue of medical errors, which a recent study found affected one-third of hospital patients,” the report said.

The federal government recently introduced a program aimed at reducing medical mistakes, the Post reported. Medicare requires reporting and does not pay for wrong-site surgery, and many insurers have followed suit, the Post added. Next year, Medicaid will begin a similar policy.

Wrong-site mistakes have multiple causes, experts told the Post: mixing up the left and right sides; operating on a patient who was accidentally given test results belonging to someone else; marking the incorrect vertebrae in spinal surgery; neglecting to mark the site at all. Some occur even though a member of the surgical team thinks something might be wrong but fails to speak up, fearful of slowing the process or challenging the surgeon in charge.

Please remember when you or someone you love is facing surgery – be watchful and ask questions!

Thanks, Jim

Elmira Accident Lawyer Jim Reed says a driver high on marijuana and texting while driving was careless when she struck and killed a pedestrian.

Talk about stupid ….

Driving while high on marijuana?

Driving while texting?

Driving while high on pot AND while texting? What stupidity!

Stupidity is one thing when you are only exposing yourself to danger but stupidity takes on a whole different and repugnant perspective when you get behind the wheel of a big, powerful piece of metal that is capable of killing other innocent people.

A very tragic Elmira pedestrian death case illustrates the idiotic and lethal combination of driving while both high and while texting!

A 27-year-old Elmira woman pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor charge of driving while ability impaired by drugs in the Sept. 3 car-pedestrian death of a 71-year-old Elmira woman.

The District Attorney is urging that the driver, Kelly Boston, be sentenced in August to three years of probation, random drug and alcohol screening, community service, a substantial fine and attendance at a victim impact panel, according to the Elmira Star-Gazette newspaper report.  Frankly, I wish the penalties were even more severe…..

We have written many times before about the dangers of driving while impaired (either drunk or high) and distracted driving (talking or texting on a cell phone) but this case involved both types of impairment/distraction.

A pedestrian, Mary C. Klugo of Scio Street, was lost tragically. The driver’s life will never be the same. The next time you think about driving impaired or texting while driving, I hope you will remember this case.

Here is another local news report on the driver’s guilty plea:

Elmira Woman Pleads Guilty in Pedestrian Accident

By Stacey Minchin
WETM-TV
Elmira, N.Y. - An Elmira woman has admitted to smoking pot the night she hit and killed an elderly pedestrian.
Chemung County District Attorney Weeden Wetmore says 26-year-old Kelly Boston has pleaded guilty to a charge of driving while impaired by drugs.
On Sept. 3, Boston was driving on Hoffman Street when she struck and killed 71-year-old Mary Klugo of Elmira.
Besides being high on pot, officials say Boston was reading a text message right before the crash.
In exchange for her plea, Wetmore is only seeking a sentence of three years probation.
Wetmore says there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her with vehicular homicide.

Thanks for reading,

James B. Reed, Elmira Injury Attorney

I am in the process of drafting a complaint against a doctor, nurse and hospital for extremely egregious medical malpractice that led to the premature and unnecessary death of an Elmira man.  Included in my complaint is a claim for punitive damages.

In drafting the complaint I did a fair amount of research about punitive damages in New York, and learned several helpful tips for both practitioners and potential claimants.

At the onset, it is critical to understand what punitive damages are designed to do as well as the strict limitations New York Courts apply in their application.  New York’s tort system (the system that allows injured people to recover against the people or entities that caused their injuries through negligence, malpractice and intentional conduct,) generally allows an injured person to only be compensated for actual economic and non-economic injuries directly related to his or her injuries.  These types of damages are called “compensatory damages” because they are designed to compensate victims.  Compensatory damages include such things as lost wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and future treatment costs.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are designed to punish and deter the wrongdoer or “tortfeasor”.  In other words, the purpose of awarding punitive damages is to send a message to the torfeasor and all similarly situated persons or entities that the conduct alleged is so egregious and unacceptable as to require punishment in order to deter others from engaging in the same types of acts.

In 2008 the New York Law Journal published a very interesting article called “The Rules On Punitive Damages.”  In this article authors Steven Napalitano and Hayden Coleman explain, “[t]hese damages, also known as exemplary damages, serve a dual purpose: first, to punish the tortfeasor, and second, to deter both the wrongdoer and others similarly situated from engaging in the same conduct in the future.”

There is no question the bar for allowing an injured person to recover punitive damages in New York is set very high.  In a recent landmark case, New York’s Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) observed:

“Punitive damages are permitted when the defendant’s wrongdoing is not simply intentional but evince[s] a high degree of moral turpitude and demonstrate[s] such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations”. (Ross v Louise Wise Serv., Inc., 8 NY3d 478, 489, quoting Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401, 405; see Prozeralik v Capital Cities Communications, 82 NY2d 466, 479; Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 NY2d 332, 335).

Indeed, Napalitano and Coleman assert “New York courts have strictly limited punitive awards to the most reprehensible instances of wrongdoing; they are only awarded in cases involving gross, wanton or willful fraud, or other morally culpable conduct.”

So, the question emerges: are punitive damages appropriate in my case?  Of course, the analysis required to answer this question must be performed on a case-by-case basis.  However, there are a few general considerations every practitioner and potential claimant should keep in mind:

1.   Does the conduct warrant punitive damages?

This is the million dollar (figuratively speaking, of course) question.  In many ways the answer starts in your gut.  Do the tortfeasor’s actions make you mad? Really mad?  Seething mad?  Do they make you want to call the newspaper and the cops and 20/20 because this sort of thing should never happen in the USA?  If the answer is a resounding yes, then perhaps you have a claim.

Much more critically, do the torfeasor’s actions make your 72 year-old/very fiscally conservative/wary of lawsuits/cheerleader of tort reform mother-in-law seething, red-faced mad?  Too often we see our cases through a rose-colored lens, and, after having sat with a grief-stricken family, believe punitive damages are a given.  They’re not.  Ever.  Vet your case out to your neighbors, your families, your colleagues.  Become part of some active list-serves.  Read verdict sheets.  There is simply no substitute for good old research.  It can save you a lot of time (and face) down the road when you are answering the summary judgment motion the defendant will surely bring.

2.   Would the conduct have made your mother-in-law seething, red-faced mad at the time it occurred?

Do not overlook this step!  Determine when the conduct occurred.  Is this a toxic tort case that involved conduct in the 1950’s?  Is this an asbestos case where the building was erected 50 years ago?

According to Napalitano and Coleman, “a claimant should be precise in defining the time period of the conduct allegedly justifying punitive damages. In cases where the conduct at issue happened many years ago, as is often the case in the toxic tort context, a plaintiff must be prepared to show that the conduct was outrageous based on the norms and knowledge then prevailing. Defense counsel may seek to engage an expert witness to establish that the conduct was not sufficiently malicious or vindictive at the time. Finally, if circumstances have changed so that the allegedly offending conduct could not happen today, as with a change in the law, defense counsel may properly assert that the goal of deterring future improper conduct cannot be satisfied.”

3.   Is the claim for punitive damages insured?

As usual, insurance is the 110 pound gorilla in the room.  It is one thing to be a crusader and secure a 10 million dollar punitive damages verdict for your client, but a whole other beast to actually translate the judgment into money your client can take to the bank.

Unfortunately, it appears claims for punitive damages are generally uninsurable in New York.  New York’s Court have ruled the public policy underlying a claim for punitive damages – that tortfeasors actually endure punishment in order to deter future bad conduct – is eradicated if insurance companies simply pick up the tab.

The law firm McCullough, Campbell & Lane, LLP created a detailed list of the rules governing the interplay of punitive damages and insurance in all 50 states, including New York:

Directly assessed punitive damages are not insurable in New York. See Public Service Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goldfarb, 425 N.E.2d 810 (N.Y. 1981); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Village of Hempstead, 397 N.E.2d 737 (N.Y. 1979); Soto v. State Farm Ins. Co., 600 N.Y.S.2d 407 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), aff’d 635 N.E.2d 1222 (N.Y. 1994); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Ambassador Group, Inc., 556 N.Y.S.2d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990), appeal dismissed, 571 N.E.2d 85 (N.Y. 1991).

In addition, the court in Home Ins. Co. v. American Home Products Corp., 550 N.E.2d 930 (N.Y. 1990), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 902 F.2d 1111 (2d Cir. 1990), applied the prohibition to out-of-state punitive damages awards for which the insured seeks coverage in New York. The court pointed out that “the punitive nature of the award, coupled with the fact that a New York insured seeks to enforce it in New York against a New York insurer … calls for the application of New York public policy.” 550 N.E.2d at 933. See Zurich Ins. Co. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 1065 (N.Y. 1994) (noting that only when a statute allowing indemnification awards damages that serve a wholly punitive, and not compensatory, purpose are they precluded by New York policy).

Vicariously assessed punitive damages are not insurable in New York. See Zurich Ins. Co., 642 N.E.2d 1065.

This of course does not mean claims for punitive damages should never be asserted in NY, nor does it mean they are always uninsured.  It simply means practitioners should have their eyes wide open with respect to collections matters.

Thanks for reading!

Christina

_________________________________
Christina Bruner Sonsire, Esq.
NY & PA Injury & Malpractice Lawyer
Ziff Law Firm, LLP
303 William Street
Elmira, New York 14902-1338
csonsire@zifflaw.com
Office: 607.733.8866
Toll-Free: 800.ZIFFLAW (943.3529)
Web: zifflaw.com
Blog: NYInjuryLawBlog.com