Congratulations to Keri Wehrheim for successfully demonstrating on appeal that the lower court erred in its interpretation of the law, securing a reversal in favor of Mapfre Insurance Company. This victory clarified the nuanced application of insurance exclusions and affirmed the importance of a thorough analysis of intent and policy language. The case was heard in the Appellate Division, Second Department, before a panel including Hon. Betsy Barros, Hon. Robert J. Miller, Hon. Joseph A. Zayas, and Hon. Lillian Wan.
This case arose from an underlying personal injury action in which defendant struck the plaintiff, Ryan Groskopf, with a baton during a heated altercation. The plaintiff sought damages against defendants and his parents, claiming negligence and recklessness. Mapfre Insurance Company initiated this declaratory judgment action, arguing that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify the Ferrall defendants in the underlying lawsuit.
The Supreme Court of Nassau County had previously ruled in favor of the Ferrall defendants and Groskopf, requiring Mapfre to provide coverage. However, the appellate panel reversed that decision, holding that the motions for summary judgment by Groskopf and the Ferrall defendants should have been denied.
The appellate court emphasized that issues of intent and credibility were central to determining whether the incident constituted an “occurrence” under the policy or fell within the policy’s exclusion for intentional acts. Notably, the court found that varying inferences could be drawn from the depositions and other evidence, making summary judgment inappropriate. The panel also clarified that Mapfre, as a non-party to the underlying personal injury case, was not bound by any determinations made there regarding Edward Ferrall's intent.
This decision reinforces important principles regarding insurers’ duties to defend and indemnify, particularly in cases involving allegations of intentional conduct, and this successful reversal is a testament to Keri's meticulous analysis and advocacy.
Tuba v. Hersch, et al., 219 A.D.3d 1461 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t Sept. 20, 2023)
Congratulations to Gerard Ferrara for successfully opposing the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in this case. This ruling reinforces the importance of addressing potential triable issues of fact, particularly in disputes involving serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). The case was heard before Hon. Francesca E. Connolly, Hon. Joseph J. Maltese, Hon. Paul Wooten, and Hon. Helen Voutsinas.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff, Fanny C. Tuba, alleged that she sustained serious injuries. Tuba and her husband, suing derivatively, moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether she met the definition of a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d). While the plaintiffs presented a prima facie case that Tuba sustained a serious injury under the 90/180–day category, the defendants, represented by Gerard, successfully demonstrated triable issues of fact. Specifically, he raised questions about whether Tuba's injuries were degenerative in nature and unrelated to the accident.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that the existence of triable issues of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. This decision highlights the importance of presenting strong evidence to counter claims of causation and injury severity, as well as Gerard’s effective advocacy in achieving this favorable defense outcome.
