WELCOME
Dear Valued Clients and Partners,
As we embark on the second issue of our “In the Know: General Liability Edition,” I am honored to continue our journey of keeping you informed and engaged with the latest developments in our field. Before delving into our newsletter, we are thrilled to share exciting announcements about our firm’s expansion: Kelley Kronenberg has officially opened our new offices in Dallas, Texas and Albany, New York! In addition, by the time of our next edition, we will have opened our office in Boston, Massachusetts.
These expansions mark significant milestones for our firm and enhance our ability to serve you better. Our presence in Dallas strengthens our capacity to handle a broader range of legal matters, including general liability, trucking and transportation, and professional liability such as Directors and Officers (D&O), Errors and Omissions (E&O), and the defense of architects and engineers.
Our Albany office represents a strategic extension of our services, complementing our established presence in Manhattan. This decision by the firm is emblematic of our commitment to provide representation throughout the state of New York, in comparison to our competitors who are largely localized in the New York City metro area. The Albany office will focus on expanding our general liability, including New York Labor Law, and insurance defense practices.
Building upon the success of our inaugural issue and energized by our expansion, we are excited to present another collection of insightful articles, expert perspectives, and updates from Kelley Kronenberg’s General Liability and ThirdParty Insurance Defense Division. From legal analysis to attorney highlights, our team has meticulously crafted each piece to deliver valuable information that enhances your understanding and empowers your decision-making.
At Kelley Kronenberg, we recognize the importance of staying connected with our clients and partners. Through “In the Know,” we aim to foster a sense of community by sharing our expertise and the stories and achievements of our dedicated team members. By highlighting their contributions, we reaffirm our commitment to delivering exceptional service and results.
As we continue to navigate the ever-evolving landscape of general liability and trucking and transportation law, your feedback remains essential. We encourage you to immerse yourselves in the content, share your thoughts, and engage with us. Your input guides us in refining our offerings to better meet your needs and exceed your expectations.
Thank you for your continued trust and partnership. It is our privilege to serve you, and we are committed to upholding the highest standards of excellence in everything we do. We’re excited about this new chapter in our firm’s growth and the enhanced value we can bring to you through our expanded presence.
Warm regards,
David Henry Chair, General Liability and Transportation Division
New Jersey’s Truck Insurance Requirements Shift Upward
By: Meir O. Edri
KK TAKEAWAY:
New Jersey law now mandates heavy-duty truck owners to double their minimum liability insurance coverage to $1.5 million, effective July 1, 2024, significantly impacting insurance premiums and raising questions about interstate commerce implications.
INTRODUCTION:
As insurance defense attorneys, it’s imperative for us to stay ahead of legislative changes that can impact our clients’ liabilities and coverage needs. One such change is the recent amendment to New Jersey law, Bill S2841/A-4292, signed into effect by Governor Phil Murphy on January 16, 2024, set to take effect on July 1, 2024.
This amendment is poised to shake up the insurance requirements for heavy-duty truck owners, mandating a substantial increase in minimum liability coverage. Under the new law, owners of commercial motor vehicles with a gross weight exceeding 26,000 pounds must maintain a minimum of $1.5 million in liability insurance. This figure is a significant leap from the previous federal minimum of $750,000, a standard set back in the 1980s and left unchanged since.
GRASPING THE SHIFT:
The rationale behind this adjustment is clear: to provide enhanced financial protection for individuals and businesses involved in accidents with these large vehicles. However, the implications extend beyond mere compliance. With higher coverage requirements come increased insurance premiums, a practical consideration that businesses must now navigate.
But the complexity doesn’t end there. The language of the bill introduces ambiguity regarding its application. Specifically, it states that the law applies to vehicles “registered or principally garaged in this State.” However, it fails to explicitly specify whether the increased minimum insurance rate applies solely to intrastate operations within New Jersey or also encompasses vehicles engaged in interstate commerce.
Enter the International Registration Plan (IRP), a program designed to facilitate interstate travel for commercial vehicles. Through IRP, trucks registered in one state
can operate in multiple jurisdictions, blurring the lines of state-specific regulations. Consider a truck registered in Delaware but operating across New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania under IRP. Is it subject to New Jersey’s new insurance requirement? This conundrum underscores the need for clarity and precision in legal language, particularly in an era of increasingly interconnected commerce. As insurance defense attorneys, it’s our duty to dissect such complexities and provide informed guidance to our clients.
CONCLUSION:
While New Jersey’s efforts to bolster insurance coverage for commercial vehicles are commendable, the devil lies in the details. Navigating the intersection of state law, interstate commerce, and regulatory frameworks like the IRP demands vigilance and expertise. As this law comes into effect, we stand ready to assist our clients in understanding its implications and ensuring compliance amidst this evolving landscape.
Wedding Season Begins with a Ripple
By: Matthew Garnett
May marks the start of peak wedding season, and this year, the Florida Supreme Court has presented a macabre gift to newlyweds.
On May 9, 2024, the Court decided Ripple v. CBS Corporation, et al., No. SC2022-0597, 2024 WL 2066708 (Fla. May 9, 2024), where it pronounced that surviving spouses who “marry into a claim” have standing to seek relief under the Wrongful Death Act.
SAYING ‘I DO’ MEANS ‘TILL DEATH ‘TIL I SUE’
The Ripple case revolved around a petitionerbride who openly admitted during discovery that her marriage was motivated by “legal reasons.” She had lived with the decedent for decades, was aware of his imminent death, and chose to marry him with the intention of benefiting from the Wrongful Death Act.
Under Section 768.21(2) of the Wrongful Death Act, surviving spouses can “recover for the loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection” and for “mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.” The text of the statute appears to apply to all spouses regardless of whether the terminal injury preceded the marriage.
However, under the common law, a surviving spouse could not “marry into a claim.”
The ruling in Ripple highlights an anomaly in the law.
No loss-of-consortium claim lies for the partner of an injured party unless they were married on the date of the injury. The petitioner-bride in Ripple had no claim if her husband survived his pre-marital injury.
The clarification of the reach of the Wrongful Death Act to include those who “marry into claims” produces anomalous results. Imagine that a couple gets engaged, and then a life-changing injury occurs. Then imagine that the couple marries despite the injury and thereafter spends a lifetime coping with it. In such a case, the spouse’s loss of companionship, protection, and “pain and suffering” is just as real as a spouse who only marries because of an injury believed to be terminal. Society likely would celebrate one spouse as noble and lament the other as opportunistic.
HOW FAR WILL THE RIPPLE GO?
The Florida Supreme Court stated in its opinion that a jury can properly consider the “timing and duration” of a marriage, including “whether a spouse’s conduct amounts to an attempt to marry into a Section 768.21(2) claim.” This may sound like a silver lining for defendants in wrongful death actions, but from a practical standpoint, how to defend “marriage after injury” cases may require years for the courts to sort out.
Imagine a scenario where the deceased was both a heavy smoker and a habitual cheater for years before being diagnosed with lung cancer. Now, consider that the surviving spouse admits they knew about the infidelity and wanted to leave, and also knew that smoking would eventually kill their partner.
The Ripple court has opened up the question: Can a jury look into why the marriage happened in the first place, even if that reason seems unrelated to the surviving spouse’s pain and suffering? This raises the intriguing possibility that the motive for marriage might be scrutinized separately from the actual emotional and mental impact on the surviving spouse. Jury instructions distinguishing the issue may be ignored by jurors.
What about the obligation to mitigate?
Could a surviving spouse be considered at fault for not ending the relationship before getting married, especially if they knew their partner’s risky behavior, like smoking, was likely to lead to death? What about situations where the spouse was aware of infidelity or other good cause to end a relationship? Can a jury determine, by the greater weight of the evidence, that a surviving spouse should have dropped the decedent prior to marriage? Will juries be harsh on defendants who try to argue these points?
Further, how will courts handle investigations into the couple’s relationship before marriage? Privacy, privilege, and practical considerations could all come into play.
The Ripple case has certainly introduced complex issues that courts and juries will need to navigate carefully.
CONCLUSION
Much like the creation of the Universe, the institution of marriage has sparked much debate and dissatisfaction. For attorneys and insurance professionals, however, Ripple just means more work—for better or for worse.
HOW CAN I HELP?
It is crucial to stay informed about Ripple’s evolving impact on wrongful death claims. A focus of my practice is defending businesses and individuals against novel and/ or high stakes claims for wrongful death. A “marriage after injury” wrongful death claim certainly qualifies. If you have questions, I encourage you to reach out.
Contact me, Matthew Garnett, for more information about Ripple or to discuss how I defend these claims. Let’s tackle these challenges together and ensure the best possible outcomes.
BEHIND THE
Face Off Against the Reptile
By: Lara Weems Rezapour
In the ever-evolving landscape of modern litigation, particularly in cases involving insurance defense, the Reptile Theory has emerged as a formidable plaintiff strategy. This approach, rooted in neuroscience and psychology, aims to trigger jurors’ survival instincts by framing a defendant’s conduct as a broad danger to community safety. Understanding and countering this tactic is crucial for mounting an effective defense in high-stakes litigation.
UNDERSTANDING THE REPTILE THEORY
The Reptile Theory posits that by appealing to the primitive part of the juror’s brain (the “reptile brain”), plaintiffs can motivate jurors to act instinctively to protect themselves and their communities from perceived threats. As such, Jurors are motivated to act as “guardians for the community” and issue a verdict that keeps the community at large “safe”. This strategy involves establishing a broad safety rule that the defendant allegedly violated, demonstrating how this violation endangered the community at large, not just the plaintiff, and arguing that a substantial verdict is necessary to deter future dangerous conduct. This approach can be particularly effective against corporate defendants, as it taps into pre-existing skepticism towards large organizations.
EFFECTIVE DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Countering the Reptile Theory requires a multifaceted approach that begins early in the litigation process and continues through trial.
Early Case Assessment
Early case assessment is crucial, allowing for the development of targeted defense strategies. This involves analyzing complaint language for telltale signs of reptilian tactics, assessing the broader implications of the alleged conduct beyond the immediate plaintiff, and evaluating the potential for the case to resonate with community safety concerns.
Strategic Motion Practice
Strategic motion practice can significantly impede the plaintiff’s ability to employ reptilian tactics. Motions to Dismiss can challenge the legal sufficiency of claims based on generalized safety notions. Motions in Limine can exclude irrelevant or prejudicial evidence that might be used to trigger jurors’ fear responses. Motions to Strike can target specific allegations that attempt to broaden the scope of the case beyond the immediate facts. When crafting these motions, it’s crucial to cite specific instances where the plaintiff has employed Reptile Theory tactics and to frame arguments in terms of established legal principles, such as the “Golden Rule” doctrine.
Deposition and Witness Preparation
Corporate representative depositions often serve as a primary battleground for reptilian tactics. Effective preparation involves ensuring deposition notices are properly limited in scope and relevance. Witnesses
should be trained to recognize and deflect questions designed to elicit broad safety admissions. They should be prepared to provide case-specific responses that support the defense narrative without making sweeping generalizations.
Counter Anchoring at Trial
At trial, to combat inflated damage demands, defense attorneys can employ counter anchoring techniques. This involves presenting a well-reasoned, lower damages figure that appears credible and fair. Breaking down the plaintiff’s demand can expose its unreasonableness, and providing context helps jurors understand the true value of the case.
Jury Instruction and Closing Arguments
Carefully crafted jury instructions and closing arguments can serve as powerful antidotes to reptilian tactics. These should emphasize the specific legal standards and duties applicable to the case and remind jurors of their obligation to decide based on facts and law, not emotions or generalized fears. Utilizing jury instructions that reinforce the proper application of evidence rules, particularly Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 404, can further bolster the defense against reptilian strategies.
CONCLUSION:
The Reptile Theory presents a significant challenge in modern litigation, particularly for defendants in the insurance and corporate sectors. By understanding the psychological underpinnings of this approach and implementing comprehensive
defense strategies, attorneys can effectively counter these tactics. Success requires a combination of early preparation, strategic legal maneuvering, and clear communication of legal principles to the jury. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, staying informed and adaptable in the face of such plaintiff strategies remains crucial for effective defense litigation.
Texas Supreme Court Recognizes and Clarifies Premises Liability Evidentiary Issues Setting the Groundwork for Future Defense Dispositive Motions
By: Justin England
Given the rise of premises liability cases in Texas, the most recent Texas Supreme Court, per curiam, decision delivered on June 14, 2024, should provide property owners and defense practitioners with a guide for future case handling. Often, plaintiffs who are invitees sue when any accidents, namely
slip-and-falls, occur. The most recent holding from the Texas Supreme Court in Pay and Save, Inc. v. Roel Canales (“Canales”) guides defense counsel’s hand toward future dispositive motions.
At the outset, to prevail in a premises liability case, an invitee-plaintiff must show that (1) a premises owner had actual or constructive
knowledge, (2) of some unreasonably dangerous condition on the premises, (3) the owner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or to eliminate the unreasonable risk of harm, (4) which proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries. Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (TEX. 1983). Pay and Save argued that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding of premises
liability because the wooden pallet was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. As discussed herein, the Texas Supreme Court agreed.
Two main issues in most premises liability matters are whether the alleged condition is unreasonably dangerous and whether there is actual or constructive knowledge. In Canales, the Court clarifies the legal and evidentiary standard to establish an unreasonably dangerous condition. By background, Plaintiff Canales sued a Pay and Save grocery store for injuries he sustained from falling after getting his foot stuck in the open side of a wooden pallet used to transport and display watermelons. After a jury trial, the Court signed a judgment of over $6 million for Canales. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was legally but not factually sufficient to support the jury’s findings regarding premises liability, so it reversed and remanded for a new trial on that claim – both parties petitioned for review.
The Texas Supreme Court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a premises liability claim because the wooden pallet was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law and reversed and rendered judgment for Pay and Save.
As factual background, the Supreme Court’s order noted:
Grocery stores throughout South Texas, including Pay and Save, use wooden pallets to transport and display whole watermelons. At the point of
harvest, watermelons are loaded into large cardboard boxes. Each boxful of watermelons rests on a wooden pallet. There they remain—from farm, to truck, onto the road, and into a store’s produce section till discarded or sold. The pallets have open sides to facilitate their transport by forklifts and pallet jacks. This is a logistical necessity. Because of the fruits’ large size, weight, and spherical shape, they cannot easily be transported safely by hand. For the same reasons, the cardboard boxes require the support of sturdier wooden pallets. Pay and Save owns a grocery store in Freer, Texas. On May 4, 2016, Canales entered the store and approached a display of watermelons on a wooden pallet. He had previously visited the location hundreds of times and had purchased watermelons without incident. On that day, however, he was wearing steel-toed work boots and failed to realize that he had placed his foot in the pallet’s open side. As Canales stepped away, his toe got caught, and he fell and fractured his right elbow.
After considering the allegations, the Court analyzed whether the evidence of record was sufficient to uphold the appellate court’s ruling. They discussed that evidence is legally insufficient to prove a vital fact when it (1) cannot be given weight under the rules of law or evidence; (2) amounts to no more than a mere scintilla; (3) conclusively establishes the opposite of what it is intended to prove; or (4) appears nowhere in the record.
Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W. 3d 580, 613 (TEX. 2016). Whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is
BEHIND THE
often a fact question. United Supermarkets, LLC v. McIntire, 646 S.W. 3d 800, 802 (TEX. 2022). However, the Court noted that it has consistently held that common or innocuous hazards are not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. Under this doctrine, the fact that a common condition caused an injury does not make it unreasonably dangerous.
The doctrine protects commercial enterprises and property owners from what would otherwise essentially be strict liability. M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W. 3d 671, 676 (TEX. 2004); CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W. 3d 97, 101 (TEX. 2000). Without this doctrine, a grocery store and everything in and around it could be characterized as unreasonably dangerous. Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Taylor, 222 S.W. 3d 406, 408 (TEX. 2006). This is because it will almost always seem true, in retrospect, that just one more step could have been taken to prevent an injury. Id.
To raise a fact-question on whether a common condition is unreasonably dangerous, the Court noted that a plaintiff must show more than a mere possibility of harm. At a minimum, Texas law requires sufficient evidence of prior accidents, injuries, complaints, reports, regulatory noncompliance, or some surrounding circumstance that transformed the condition into one measurably more likely to cause injury.
The Texas Supreme Court recognized that the record in Canales shows a “complete
absence” of any evidence of prior complaints, reports, or injuries from pallets like this one— and not just at Pay and Save’s 150 stores, but also at “H.E.B., Walmart, or any other grocery store.” The Court noted that this fact is irrefutable even though thousands of customers walk past these displays every single day. There is also no evidence of any code, law, or regulation prohibiting or restricting the use of wooden pallets.
It was further acknowledged that the Court of Appeals correctly recognized that the evidence shows only “a possibility that someone’s foot might enter a pallet opening.”
The Texas Supreme Court held that as the evidence shows only a mere possibility of harm, it is legally insufficient. The wooden pallet was not unreasonably dangerous. It was a common condition, a type of hazard that people encounter and avoid, and any type of pallet guards are not required by any law, ordinance, or statute, so the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment on Canales’s premises-liability claim and render judgment for Pay and Save on that claim.
The Canales decision is a powerful decision that details that a property owner cannot be held liable for a condition under a premises claim when there is no evidence of prior accidents, injuries, complaints, reports, or regulatory noncompliance – as a matter of law. This decision will help defense practitioners shape future discovery and defense handling, and hopefully expedite future dispositive motions when the record merely describes common conditions.
Beware of Dogs: Appellate Division, Third Department Unpersuaded by Vacationing Defendants’ Arguments After Plaintiff Slips and Falls While Dog Sitting
By: Jesse L. Siegel and Scott D. Kagan
Plaintiffs agreed to dog sit for Defendants for 10 days while the family vacationed in Florida. Plaintiffs were of advanced age and not in great health. Plaintiff Robert Vance (“Vance”) had a walking boot due to a broken foot, and Plaintiff Lisa Vance was undergoing chemotherapy and would eventually pass away. From December 16, 2020, to December 17, 2020, a snowstorm dumped over two feet of snow near Defendants’ home in Otsego County. Plaintiff notified Defendant Eric Burkhart (“Burkhart”) about the storm before and after it occurred; this was confirmed via text message. On the morning of December 17, 2020, Vance cleared a small area on the back deck for the dogs to go to the bathroom. Later that day, around 3:30 p.m., Vance returned to the small area looking for one of the dogs, which had not returned. When Vance saw that one of the dogs was stuck in the snow just off the deck, he slipped and fell, suffering injuries.
BEHIND THE
Plaintiffs filed a negligence suit against the defendants centered around the alleged failure to adequately maintain the property by allowing the dangerous, unsafe, and improper condition of two feet of snow to remain on site after giving notice. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not have a duty to Plaintiffs, they did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition, and that there was a storm in progress, which obviated the need for snow removal.
The trial court denied Defendants’ motion, resulting in the appeal. On appeal, the decision was upheld.
KK TAKEAWAYS
The Appellate Division, Third Department used the word “reasonable” in much of its written opinion to, at least in part, deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Several unique facts here do not seem reasonable under the circumstances:
Defendants were a thousand miles away when the accident occurred.
Plaintiffs arguably created the condition which ultimately caused the fall by clearing the area.
It was still snowing at the time of the accident.
The decision by the Appellate Division hinges upon a few novel facts not ordinarily thought of in classic slip-and-fall or snow-and-ice cases, which ultimately swung the pendulum in favor of Plaintiffs:
The Appellate Division ruled that Defendants had a non-delegable duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, even while in Florida.
The Court ruled that Defendants also did not make reasonable attempts to provide for snow removal, especially when they knew a storm was on its way. The evidence showed that Vance texted Burkhart three days before the storm, to which Burkhart sarcastically replied.
Despite asking Plaintiffs to watch their dogs for 10 days, Defendants knew Plaintiffs were not in good health, and that Plaintiffs could not perform the snow removal themselves.
Plaintiffs were not asked to shovel, nor was sand or salt provided other than in a shed 30 feet away from the deck where Vance ultimately fell. Defendants also knew plaintiffs would have to take their dogs out and were advised that the only place to do this was the back deck where Vance fell.
Another interesting tidbit is that the Appellate Division chose to ignore the fact that Vance cleared an area on the back deck first by shoveling and then later fell on or around the same area. Perhaps Vance will eventually have some comparative negligence at trial. However, for the purpose of eliminating all triable issues of fact on a motion for summary judgment, the Appellate Division was not persuaded.
This case is also a cautionary tale in expert retention. Even though Defendants retained
a meteorological expert who testified about the massive amount of snowfall (over two feet) during a specific period, the opinion lacked relevant specificity concerning snowfall around the actual time of the accident. The expert report did not speak to the amount or severity at 3:30 p.m., only stating that the snowfall lessened earlier that morning. Whether the omission was purposeful or not, the Third Department felt questions were left open as to whether the storm had actually ceased or abated enough to dispense of the “storm in progress” defense. Moreover, the unique situation presented by the dogs, in which they needed to relieve themselves and could not be kept inside for two days straight, ultimately played a role in the denial. In other words, the Appellate Division recognized, at least in its own decision, that the dogs would likely need to go outside regardless of the “progress” of the storm, and this was the sole reason Plaintiffs were at the premises in the first instance.
The moral of the story? You can’t just stick your head in the sand, or the snow, to avoid liability.
Louisiana Levels the Playing Field: Key Changes for Insurers in Injury Claims
By: Michael Hill and Elizabeth Austin
The 2024 Louisiana Legislative Session brought pivotal changes to personal injury litigation, offering new advantages for insurers. Key reforms include an extended prescriptive period for filing personal injury lawsuits and significant restrictions on directaction suits against insurance companies. These changes promise to reshape claim strategies and potentially reduce insurer exposure in Louisiana’s legal arena.
Louisiana’s lawmakers have finally limited when a plaintiff can assert a direct claim against an insurance company under the
BEHIND THE
22:1269. The prior rule was a plaintifffriendly avenue for savvy plaintiff attorneys to influence a jury demonstrating that an insurance company would be on the hook for a judgment and not a more personable defendant. Under the prior law, a tort plaintiff could sue an insurer directly, jointly and in solido with the insured, thus informing a jury of the existence of the insurance policy affording coverage, which led to higher verdicts. The new law provides that a tort plaintiff “shall have no right of direct action against the insurer” unless at least one of the following exceptions applies:
• The insured files for bankruptcy in a court of competent jurisdiction or when proceedings to adjudge an insured bankrupt have been commenced before a court of competent jurisdiction.
• The insured is insolvent.
• Service of citation or other process has been attempted without success, or the insured defendant refuses to answer or otherwise defend the action within 180 days of service.
• When the cause of action is for damages as a result of an offense or quasi-offense between children and their parents or between married persons.
• When the insurer is an uninsured motorist carrier.
• When the insurer is defending the lawsuit under a reservation of rights, or the insurer denies coverage to the insured, but only for the purpose of establishing coverage.
To mollify the plaintiff bar, the updated Statute includes a new provision that allows for the joinder of an insurer after settlement or in connection with a final judgment. Indeed, the new law prohibits the name of an insurer from inclusion in the caption of a lawsuit, and further prohibits the court from disclosing the existence of insurance coverage to the jury or mentioning coverage in the jury’s presence unless required by Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 411.
While these legislative changes offer significant advantages for insurers, they also introduce nuanced caveats that could impact your litigation management strategies. As your dedicated legal partners, we are here to guide you through these complexities. We are eager to discuss how these new provisions might affect your specific cases, answer any questions you may have, and help you make informed decisions to optimize your defense.
• The insured is deceased.
Additionally, Louisiana recently updated its Statute of Limitations, called a Prescriptive Period in Louisiana’s parlance, from one to two years for certain tort claims. Specifically, run of the mill personal injury claims are now subject to the two-year prescriptive period. However, the two-year period does not run against minors or interdicts in actions involving permanent disability and brought pursuant to the Louisiana Products Liability Act or state law governing product liability in effect at the time of the injury or damage.
While the impacts of this change in longstanding Louisiana law are unknown, they are certain to be significant. Plaintiffs will now have an extended timeframe to build their cases, treat claimed injuries, and negotiate settlements before filing suit. These changes will allow chiropractors, pain management doctors, and other treaters more time to build up the value of a claimed injury before involving the court system. Additionally, certain medical treatment, such as last-option elective surgeries, which often don’t happen in the first-year postaccident, may occur before a claim is formally made. Importantly, under current Louisiana law, there is no provision for alleged
tortfeasors to mandate claimants undergo an Independent Medical Examination prior to the initiation of litigation. Therefore, insurers may anticipate potential complexities relating to questions of medical causation in cases involving severe personal injuries.
We will closely follow the impact of this new legislation impacting personal injury cases in Louisiana. Please contact Michael Hill or Elizabeth Austin of the Kelley Kronenberg New Orleans office should you have questions or require assistance relating to general liability claims.
BRIEFCASE BEHIND THE
ATTORNEY SPOTLIGHT
DeAndreth
G. Isaacs
Attorney disaacs @kklaw.com Jacksonville, FL Click here for Bio
If you could spend one day anywhere in the world, where would it be?
Home! I am Jamaican through and through. The roots of my culture anchor me in every aspect of my life today. A day in Jamaica gives me direct reminiscing exposure to my vibrant culture, the stunning beaches, delicious food, and the warmth of my people. Whether I’m relaxing on the beach, exploring waterfalls, or immersing myself in our music and cuisine, Jamaica offers me an unforgettable experience in just a day.
What’s currently playing on your Spotify playlist?
Paise Jah in the Moonlight by YG Marley
Who has inspired you most in your life?
My dad is my hero and my inspiration because of his unwavering love, endless sacrifices, and the countless lessons he’s taught me about life, resilience, and kindness. His strength, wisdom, and unconditional support have shaped you into the person I am today.
If you couldn’t be a lawyer, what would you be?
I would start a non-profit organization for children with biliary atresia to make a meaningful impact in the lives of children with biliary atresia and their families by providing support, resources, and advocacy. Creating this non-profit organization would allow me to raise awareness, and offer assistance to families that are navigating the challenges of this condition. It would be a way to channel my passion and energy towards helping others and making a difference in the world.
What is your favorite part about defense work?
Definitely working with the adjusters. Working with insurance company adjusters in defense work allows for effective communication and negotiation, ensuring fair outcomes for all parties involved. It provides an opportunity to collaborate, find common ground, and ultimately achieve resolution in legal matters. Additionally, building relationships with adjusters can streamline the process and lead to smoother proceedings, benefiting both clients and the legal team.
Christopher Wright Attorney
Matthew S. Garnett Partner/Business Unit Leader
Carla Freire Torres Attorney
Kelley Kronenberg Secures Favorable Settlement in $2M Theme Park Case
For
Kelley Kronenberg Secures Dismissal in Freon Poisoning Case Against Morgan & Morgan
David W. Gordon Partner / Business Unit Leader
Alexandra C. Mena Attorney
Nita Smith Partner
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
David S. Henry Chair, General Liability and Transportation Division
Email David S. Henry
David Henry serves as the Chair of our firm’s General Liability and Third-Party Insurance Defense Division, which includes our New York Labor Law, Trucking and Transportation, and Gig Economy Practices. He focuses his practice on high exposure and complex litigation, dividing his time between our Florida and New York offices to assist clients in both states.
David specializes in working with national and international insurers, including the Lloyds of London Market, to defend corporations, municipalities, and individuals facing liability arising from various tort and commercial causes of actions. He has a strong track record of success, securing efficient outcomes as soon as possible, but also wins through voluntary dismissal, summary judgment, trial, and appeal. David has also developed a reputation as a skilled and deliberate negotiator, able to leverage nuanced and intricate coverage positions and defenses to benefit his clients through direct negotiation, and especially, at mediation.
David manages a large and experienced team of attorneys across multiple offices nationwide. Under David’s leadership, the team focuses on the needs of our clients’ cases, identifying the specific caseby-case litigation requirements to bring about
an efficient resolution. The Division’s attorneys emphasize effective communication and client service, regularly updating clients and insurers about each case’s developments.
David’s current practice centers on the most intricate and challenging matters, encompassing a range of complex cases involving New York Labor Law Section 240 cases, bad faith litigation, negligent security, dram shop, premises liability, commercial transportation, product liability, and more.
David boasts a wealth of diverse litigation experience, having skillfully handled a broad spectrum of cases, ranging from defamation, Section 1983 claims, construction defect, toxic tort, medical malpractice, directors’ and officers’ liability, professional malpractice, class action lawsuits, coverage, and matters under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. David has also engaged in commercial litigation.
David has been involved in cases with prominent media coverage and a strong community impact. He plays a crucial part in the firm’s Rapid Response Team, ensuring his availability for unforeseen situations, regardless of the time of day.
Elizabeth Hernandez Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Elizabeth Hernandez
Elizabeth Hernandez is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on general liability and third-party insurance defense.
Elizabeth is a seasoned trial attorney with over 25 jury trials. Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, she worked as a Managing Partner of a prominent nationwide law firm representing clients on complex subrogation matters involving insurance claims. Successfully recovering millions of dollars
on behalf of her clients.
Elizabeth obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University College of Law and a Bachelor’s in Legal Studies from the University of Central Florida.
Elizabeth is a United States Air Force Veteran and proud Florida native who enjoys spending her time with her family outdoors either on the water or on the golf course.
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Lara Weems Rezapour Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Lara Weems Rezapour
Lara Weems Rezapour is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, where she concentrates on matters related to all aspects of general liability, third-party insurance defense, and gig economy liability.
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Lara was a Partner at a prominent Florida defense firm where she represented insurance companies in defense of their first-party property, general liability, automobile negligence, and premises liability claims. Prior thereto, Lara dedicated her practice to advocating on behalf of some of Florida’s most vulnerable citizens, first serving as a Guardian Ad Litem to assess the needs of children involved in high-conflict family law cases and then representing victims of domestic violence.
Lara received her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Tennessee. She went on to earn her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from Florida A&M University College of Law. Lara excelled academically, earning Book Awards for receiving the highest score in her Legal Research and Writing I, Legal Research and Writing II, and Florida Constitutional Law courses. She also served as Senior Staff Editor of Law Review, Treasurer of the Hispanic American Law Student Association, President of Christian Legal Society, and a member of Moot Court. Prior to her admission to the Bar, Lara had the distinguished honor of being chosen as one of two Legal Interns to United States Senator Marco Rubio, an experience which afforded her significant international conflict resolution experience.
Justin P. England Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Justin P. England
Justin England is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, having spearheaded the firm’s expansion into Texas by opening our Dallas office. He focuses his practice on firstparty property insurance defense, general liability defense, and professional liability, including E&O and D&O. He has vast experience handling a broad range of architect and engineering liability claims and construction defect claims.
Justin brings over a decade of litigation experience to Kelley Kronenberg, with significant first-chair trial experience in state and federal courts across Texas. He has successfully managed a diverse range of cases, including product liability, construction defects, catastrophic injuries, real estate disputes, tort litigation, and consumer law matters.
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, he was a founding partner of a Dallas law office, responsible for the oversight and professional development of associate attorneys. Justin has been recognized for his exemplary legal skill, having been selected for inclusion in Texas Monthly Texas Super Lawyers – Rising Stars for General Litigation consistently since 2014.
Justin earned his Bachelor of Arts in History from The University of Texas at Austin, where he was a member of the University of Texas Ice Hockey Team and participated in a study abroad program in Barcelona, Spain. He then obtained his Juris Doctor from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. While in law school, Justin also studied Legal Studies and International Sales of Goods at University College, Oxford University in England.
Beyond his professional achievements, civic engagement plays a significant role in Justin’s life. He is an active member of several legal organizations, including the Dallas Bar Association, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, and the William “Mac” Taylor American Inn of Court, where he serves as a Barrister. His commitment to the legal profession is further exemplified by his fellowship in the Texas Bar Foundation. In the greater community, Justin dedicates his time to Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America, demonstrating his passion for mentorship. He is also a member of the Knights of Columbus, Council #5656, and contributes to local education through his involvement with the St. Monica Catholic School Dad’s Club.
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Jesse L. Siegel Partner
Email Jesse L. Siegel
Jesse L. Siegel is a Partner in Kelley Kronenberg’s General Liability and Third-Party Insurance Defense Division. Jesse brings extensive experience in handling high-exposure personal injury matters, including New York Labor Law cases, premises liability, and motor vehicle accidents.
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Jesse honed his skills at several prominent law firms in New York. Jesse started his career at a mid-sized firm, where he handled all types of insurance defenses cases from inception through trial. This included taking jury verdicts in Nassau, Queens, and Kings County. Most recently, he served as a Member at a midsized insurance defense firm, where he managed a caseload of high-stakes personal injury cases. Jesse also handled first-party property damage
and insurance coverage matters. An experienced litigator, Jesse has made appearances in the Supreme Courts of all five boroughs of New York City, as well as Long Island and Westchester.
In addition to his legal work, Jesse is committed to professional development and mentoring. In his previous role, he conducted performance reviews, interviewed potential new hires, and provided guidance to associate attorneys.
Jesse earned his Bachelor of Arts in History from Cornell University, where he was recognized on the Dean’s List. He then obtained his Juris Doctor from the University of Miami School of Law, where he was involved in the Entertainment & Sports Law Society.
Scott D. Kagan Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Scott D. Kagan
Scott D. Kagan is a Partner and Business Unit Leader in the General Liability and Third-Party Insurance Defense Division at Kelley Kronenberg. He focuses his practice on complex litigation matters, with a strong emphasis on construction cases, specifically New York Labor Law. Scott represents a diverse range of clients including property owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and Controlled Insurance Program (CIP) sponsors in both Owner Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIPs) and Contractor Controlled Insurance Programs (CCIPs). His extensive experience covers Labor Law 240, 241, and 200 claims across various commercial construction projects, from large-scale developments like hotels and schools to smaller commercial buildings and private homes. Beyond construction, Scott’s practice also encompasses product liability, trucking and commercial transportation, and premises liability cases. With his comprehensive expertise, Scott provides strategic legal counsel and representation to clients throughout New York and across multiple jurisdictions.
Prior to joining Kelley Kronenberg, Scott built a distinguished career at several prominent law firms in the Greater New York City Area and New York’s Capital Region. He began as an associate attorney, quickly advancing to senior roles, including most recently serving as a Member at a well-respected litigation firm. Throughout his career, Scott has managed all phases of complex litigation, from inception through trial, demonstrating expertise in case analysis, strategic planning, and negotiations. His experience includes federal jury trial work and pro hac vice appearances in federal courts nationwide. Scott has also been published multiple times, authoring articles on product liability cases and crash avoidance technology in motor vehicles and vertical transportation (elevators/escalators).
Scott completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, obtaining a Bachelor of Science in Sport Management. He then earned his Juris Doctor from Hofstra University School of Law, with a focus on Labor & Employment. Scott has been recognized with multiple accolades, including being named a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2015 to 2024 and being selected for the National Trial Lawyers: Top 40 Under 40.
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Michael E. Hill Partner/Business Unit Leader
Email Michael E. Hill
Michael Hill is a Partner and Business Unit Leader in the firm’s expanding New Orleans office. He has over 23 years of experience resolving cases pending before Federal and State court juries and judges in Louisiana and Texas. His areas of practice include complex litigation, insurance coverage disputes, trucking and transportation litigation, as well as the general liability defense of individuals, companies, and their insurers.
Michael has a reputation for evaluating cases thoroughly and quickly at the outset of litigation, while working closely with clients to select and implement a resolution strategy that fits his client’s goals. In the courtroom, Michael is a zealous advocate on behalf of his clients, and he has a passion for trial work. Michael’s third-party insurance defense experience includes defense of clients sued under theories of premises liability, negligent security, construction defect, automobile and trucking litigation, and toxic tort cases. In addition, Michael has handled complex first-party property coverage and insurance bad-faith litigation in both Louisiana and Texas.
Michael holds a Certified Litigation Management Professional (CLMP) designation from the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance. He regularly instructs continuing education courses for industry claims personnel on a wide range of topics from how to manage gruesome photos at trial to good faith claims handling.
Michael graduated from West Virginia University with a Bachelor of Science in Journalism and a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He went on to earn his Juris Doctorate from Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans, where he argued on to the school’s Moot Court ATLA trial competition team. In 1998, immediately after law school, Michael became a prosecutor for the New Orleans’ District Attorney’s Office where he tried over 30 cases. He later worked for the Louisiana Supreme Court’s Central Staff before beginning his civil litigation defense practice in 2002
Matthew S. Garnett Partner / Business Unit Leader
Email Matthew Garnett
Heather Ragone is a Partner and Business Unit Leader in Kelley Kronenberg’s Trucking and Transportation Practice Group. Heather has amassed over 20 years of experience defending complex and high-profile transportation-related litigation in New York, New Jersey, and federal court, involving everything from limousines, school buses, tractor-trailers, and dump trucks to double-decker tour buses. Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Heather spent many years as the chief member of a New York/New Jersey Emergency Response Team. She now brings that experience and expertise to Kelley Kronenberg’s Rapid Response Task Force.
Always prioritizing the best interests of her clients, Heather engages in extensive interactions with police, prosecutors, investigators, accident reconstructionist experts, media, personnel, and other emergency responders. Heather assumes the dual role of a forward-thinking client advocate and a vital intermediary between clients and various law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as investigatory agencies, such as the National Transportation Safety Board. This
role is especially crucial in the context of severe and high-profile commercial transportation accidents.
Heather has presented lectures to commercial auto carriers regarding not only the value and strategy of rapid responses, but also on New York and New Jersey litigation in general. She is a member of the Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA).
Recognized by the New York Metro Super Lawyers for eight consecutive years in the areas of Transportation and Maritime, Heather’s achievements are particularly notable. The Super Lawyers distinction is a prestigious honor, with only 5% of attorneys receiving this recognition, and an even more exclusive 2.5% being designated as Rising Stars, an honor bestowed on Heather for 2014-2015.
Before pursuing her Juris Doctor degree at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Heather completed her Bachelor of Science in Biology at the City University of New York-College of Staten Island.
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Meir O. Edri Attorney
Email Meir O. Edri
Meir Edri is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on trucking and transportation.
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Meir served as a Trial Attorney, managing extensive caseloads involving misdemeanors and felonies throughout all phases of litigation. His expertise also includes criminal defense representation.
Meir graduated from the City University of New York, Hunter College, with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He then earned his Juris Doctor degree from Penn State Law.
Meir is fluent in Hebrew.
ACCOLADES AWARDS AND FIRM AWARDS
Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
OUT & ABOUT KELLEY KRONENBERG
Beach Clean Up
Jacksonville
Fort Lauderdale
West Palm Beach
Orlando
FUTURE EVENTS
October 18th
Volusia County Bar Association 2024 Masquerade Ball
Attendees: Lara Weems Rezapour and Wendy Gaskins
Kelley Kronenberg is a Proud Sponsor
October 23rd – 25th
32nd Annual Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA) Seminar
Attendees: Alida Verdino, Heather Ragone, and Michael Roos
Kelley Kronenberg Attorneys at the PGIT Member Education Day
David Henry and Alida Verdino at the Royal Ascot in London
510 19 220
Employees Attorneys Locations
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 495 employees, 220 attorneys, and 19 locations throughout Florida and the United States.
We are privileged to represent large public and private companies, small businesses, and individuals nationwide. With more than 40 practice areas, and growth on the horizon, we offer a comprehensive catalog of legal services to protect your legal interests in business and at home. Our firm is progressive and technologically advanced, while remaining true to our customer service heritage: integrity, ingenuity, and sincerity. Ever mindful of our history, but intensely committed to our future, we offer our clients a small firm feel with large firm resources. more than with over the convenience of
LOCATIONS
FORT LAUDERDALE
10360 W. State Road 84
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 370-9970
ORLANDO
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 648-9450
TAMPA
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone: (813) 223-1697
DAYTONA
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
Phone: (754) 888-5437
BOSTON
90 Canal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Phone: (754) 888-5437
NEW YORK CITY
250 Park Avenue,7th Floor
New York, NY 10177
Phone: (845) 306-7867
CHICAGO
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 216-8828
JACKSONVILLE
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Phone: (904) 549-7700
MERRILLVILLE
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200
Merrillville, IN 46410
Phone: (317) 731-6243
MIAMI
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (305) 503-0850
NEW ORLEANS
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Phone: (504) 208-9055
TALLAHASSEE
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 250
Tallahassee, FL 32312
Phone: (850) 577-1301
DALLAS
5956 Sherry Lane, 20th Floor
Dallas, TX 75225
Phone: (983) 999-4640
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway
First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Phone: (908) 403-8174
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 990-4972
WEST PALM BEACH
1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 684-5956
INDIANAPOLIS
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218
Indianapolis, IN 46256
Phone: (317) 731-6243
NAPLES
1570 Shadowlawn Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Phone: (239) 990-6490
ALBANY
401 New Karner Road. Suite 301
Albany, NY 12205
Phone: (845) 306-7870
