Our firm recently obtained favorable settlements for a self-insured municipality which we represent. In the first matter, the plaintiff suffered extensive injuries including fracture of the left elbow with open reduction, dislocation of the left knee, fractured ulna with skin grafting and post traumatic infections including six months of hospitalization. Plaintiff alleged that the municipality was negligent in the maintenance of the roadway and also asserted a claim for the negligent design of the roadway. After the note of issue had been filed, we were successful in settling the matter for $2,500.
We were able to settle another case which involved a self-insured municipality where the plaintiff, a police officer, was injured in an accident with another vehicle in the course of his employment. The plaintiff sustained trimalleolar fracture of the right ankle with ankle fusion, concussion and right patella chondromalacia and was retired from the police force on permanent disability. The municipality had an underinsurance policy with a $1,000,000 limit. Because we were able to raise numerous issues as to the availability of that underinsurance coverage, the plaintiff settled the case against the other parties and gave the municipality a total release from any claim against the underinsurance policy.
We obtained the dismissal of a plaintiff's complaint where the plaintiff was burned with hot cooking oil when she fell asleep while cooking and claimed that a smoke detector malfunctioned. The Supreme Court granted our motion agreeing that the alleged failure of the smoke detector was not the proximate cause of the accident.
We obtained dismissal of a plaintiff's action where the plaintiff had sustained permanent facial scars with glass imbedded in the plaintiff's face, which would require future surgery, when the plaintiff failed to submit to Court-ordered physical examinations.
We obtained dismissal of a plaintiff's action for failure to meet the no-fault threshold where the plaintiff failed to submit competent medical proof to oppose our motion.
We obtained a declaratory judgment that an insurer was not obligated to defend its insured under a homeowners policy where the defendant, who had lived at the insured residence and had separated from his wife, had transferred his interest in the premises to his wife. During discovery, we were able to prove that the defendant had entered into an oral agreement with his wife to share in the proceeds from the sale of the premises and had in fact received $50,000 upon the sale of the premises. The Supreme Court concluded that based upon the above, the defendant had an insurable interest in the premises at the time of the accident.
We achieved dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint at the end of the plaintiff's case where the plaintiff was a passenger in our insured's vehicle which was struck by an intoxicated driver from the opposing lane of traffic. The plaintiff sustained over seventy stitches due to her injuries. Because neither plaintiff nor the co-defendant could prove that our insured, who had a $500,000 policy, did anything to cause the accident even though he was driving after the hour permitted by a junior operator's license, the Supreme Court granted our motion to dismiss.
