by KPMLAW | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Drones are in the air and in the news. This technology currently outpaces many of our standard coverage forms. Gary Reinhardt, Esq. and Managing Partner of KPM LAW’s Coverage & Fraud Department discusses the main concerns insurers are facing when interpreting coverage for this expanding technology. For instance, standard homeowners’ and CGL policies contain an auto and aircraft exclusion. This prevents coverage for the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft owned, operated by, rented by or loaned to an insured. This exclusion even applies if the allegations pertain to improper or negligent supervision. Is a drone really an aircraft? ISO, for instance, recently defined “aircraft” although the endorsement is not common. This definition says that an aircraft is anything not used for carrying passengers or cargo, except for model or hobby aircraft. This exception in the definition may avoid the aircraft exclusion for the homeowner using a drone; just as an “occurrence” with a model or hobby aircraft might result in coverage. However, if the drone is camera-equipped and used in a manner that invades the privacy of someone or results in “personal injury” (as opposed to “bodily injury”), a more difficult discussion arises. Intentional act exclusions and the implications of privacy invasion must be studied to determine coverage for the homeowner. A commercially used drone may not fall within the exception as the drone may not fit the categorization of “model” or “hobby.” Because of this, many carriers are drafting specific drone insurance. Others are trying to fit drone liability issues into the CGL by drafting endorsements. These policies and endorsements address the auto/aircraft...
by KPMLAW | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
The Board of Directors of NRRDA (National Retail and Restaurant Defense Association) created the Brian Cafritz Presidential Award to honor Brian’s “dedication, integrity and efforts in guiding the creation of NRRDA.” The award was presented for the first time in Austin, Texas on February 13, 2015 to Brian, and will be presented annually to honor outstanding and exceptional service to NRRDA. Brian joined KPM LAW in 1993 and serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Restaurant and Retail division. He is heavily invested in this sector and defends the brand of many Fortune 500 companies as well as managing their regional litigation. NRRDA was founded in 2007 creating an industry-wide network and educational community for professionals dedicated to the defense of claims in the Retail and Restaurant industry. Brian was one of NRRDA’s primary founders and was elected its inaugural President, ultimately serving two terms. Under Brian’s leadership NRRDA grew to over 500 members across the nation and is widely recognized as the industry leader. Since completing his term as NRRDA’s president, Brian continues to sit on the Past Presidents Committee, the Board of Directors, and other committees. “What Brian has done with NRRDA is nothing short of phenomenal,” said KPM LAW’s President Chip Kalbaugh. “Having the vision to help create this influential organization, and the drive to see it through, defines Brian’s character and client dedication. Brian is a worthy standard bearer of NRRDA, and this sector, and KPM LAW is pleased to continue our support as one of its flagship firms.”...
by KPMLAW | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Brian A. Cafritz, Esq. With the looming FDA deadline requiring restaurants to make nutritional data on food products available, restaurateurs wondering about its impact need only look to the recent headlines to see the latest trend in litigation. This month alone, Subway settled a class action lawsuit for selling “foot-long subs” that were only 11 inches. Peet’s Coffee has been sued for selling less coffee in cups that are charged as 12 and 32 oz. Indeed, restaurants are now learning what retailers and manufacturers of goods learned long ago…that the public can be very demanding and even more unforgiving. But what has spurred this attack on restaurants? The world is changing faster than most of us can keep up. Access to information instantly streams to the palm of our hand. Social media has connected millions to observations and experiences thousands of miles away. In addition, society has evolved to a point where large verdicts and class actions against corporate giants are not unthinkable outliers but are embedded in the culture of our society. To be certain, easy access to information has created a consumer base that demands immediate and accurate information, and has created an expectation that a selected product be served as promised without error. Whether it is intended or not, the language used in a restaurant’s description of a product can create an express warranty to the consumer. Typically quantifiable, provable, or measurable descriptions in a product’s ingredients, (Organic, Vegan, or Gluten Free), or in the product’s size (Quarter Pounder, Foot Long, or 32 oz.) create consumer expectations that may be misleading if the product...
by KPMLAW | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Christopher R. Wilson, Esq. Edited by Rachel A. Riordan, Esq. Consider this scenario: while at work a man slips and falls on a wet floor, breaking his arm. In the process, he also chips his dentures, breaks his eyeglasses, and damages a spinal cord stimulator used to treat pre-existing back pain. Which of these injuries or damages is compensable under the Virginia Worker’s Compensation Act? You’re probably very familiar with Virginia’s rules on the compensability of physical injuries, but what about other items damaged in a compensable accident—how do you determine which items the employer has to pay for? The Virginia Worker’s Compensation Commission recently addressed this issue in a case called Quiroz v. Prince William County Schools, JCN VA 00000647619 (Oct. 27, 2014). In Quiroz, just like in the example above, the claimant slipped and fell at work, suffering several compensable injuries. Also damaged in the fall, however, was the claimant’s spinal cord stimulator, which doctors had surgically implanted years earlier to treat failed back syndrome. At the evidentiary hearing, the claimant argued that the employer should be held responsible for repairing or replacing the spinal cord stimulator in addition to the medical treatment for the physical injuries. Virginia Code §65.2-603(A)(2) provides that employers: shall repair, if repairable, or replace dentures, artificial limbs, or other prosthetic or orthotic devices damaged in an accident otherwise compensable under worker’s compensation . . . . The claimant relied on this section to argue that a spinal cord stimulator qualified as a “prosthetic or orthotic device” because it “reduce[d] pain in order to improve the functionality of the spine.” Both...
by KPMLAW | Nov 16, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by John K. Messersmith, Esq. & Sarah Kathryn Atkinson, Esq. Edited by Janeen Koch, Esq. How often have you had a claim where the facts suggested your insured had no liability but years after the accident, the claim re-emerges on your desk as a lawsuit with your insured as a defendant? As a claims professional, a huge concern in any case involving multiple entities and parties is keeping your coverage from being exposed. Transportation cases are particularly problematic as the industry is known for its complicated relationships associated with owner/operators, leased tractors, leased trailers and other contractual arrangements. Plaintiffs’ attorneys mine those relationships for ways to include new parties and importantly, to find additional layers of coverage. One such tactic that seems to be gaining favor with plaintiff attorneys is to allege a “joint venture” between a tractor or trailer owner and the operator. Traditionally, plaintiffs simply alleged an employer-employee relationship and therefore, the employee’s negligence was vicariously imposed on the employer. Obviously, the existence of such a relationship in the trucking industry can be complicated and requires a fact-based determination of a number of factors, the most important of which is the right to control. Coker v. Gunter, 191 Va. 747 (1951). Today, however, most motor carriers and operators are engaged in a contractual relationship represented by a contract, lease or purchase agreement. This complex and often tangled set of relationships has given rise to some attorneys arguing that this type of relationship constitutes a joint venture. They simply allege that the owner and the operator engaged in a joint venture to transport product for a...
by KPMLAW | Nov 4, 2015 | Events, KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
KPM LAW’s Gary Reinhardt, Managing Partner of KPM’s Coverage & Fraud Department, will present at The Property & Liability Resource Bureau’s Eastern Regional Adjusters Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 10-11, 2015. An AV-rated attorney who serves as General Counsel to the International Association of Special Investigation Units, Gary is speaking on the latest trends and strategies in property fraud claims. Gary and the team at KPM LAW hope to see you at this valuable two-day conference. More information can be found at http://www.plrbregionalconferences.org/. ...
