By James E. Mercante, Featured in the New York Law Journal.
It is said that a collision at sea will ruin your whole day. It can also be fatal and ruin careers. One such collision punctuates this in a big, expensive, and tragic way. Ten Navy sailors died and 31 were injured. The two ships sustained millions in damage. The careers of the commanding and executive officers aboard the Navy warship ended on that fateful voyage—true to the adage that it takes years to build a reputation and minutes to destroy it.
The 9,000-ton guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (the McCain) collided in the Singapore Strait with a 39,000-ton oil and chemical tanker Alnic MC (the Alnic). What resulted was a textbook case of maritime law involving issues of collision liability, apportionment of fault, federal admiralty procedure, choice of law, ship owners’ Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability and the preclusion against service members suing the military.
A five-day bench trial was held before Senior Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in November 2021. The massive case was split into two trial phases: Phase 1 being the trial to apportion liability between the tanker owner and the United States, and Phase II to adjudicate the death and injury claims. Crotty’s 49-page decision dated June 15, 2022, admirably navigates through the collision facts in minute by minute granular detail worthy of a movie script. In the Matter of the Complaint of Energetic Tank as Owner of the M/V ALNIC MC, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability, 607 F. Supp 3d 328 (SDNY 2021).
It’s hard to fathom a more comprehensive collision analysis. Indeed, the Navy took notice of this decision and has incorporated portions of Crotty’s collision analysis in its Bridge Resource Management training course taught to Surface Warfare Officers.
The awards for injury and death will be determined by a jury in Phase II, which trial has yet to begin. Alnic’s appeal of Crotty’s apportionment of fault ruling was just argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Jan. 18, 2024 before Judges John Walker, Susan Carney and Michael Park. The decision is pending.
Casualty Facts
The Aug. 21, 2017, collision occurred in one lane of a traffic separation scheme within the Singapore Strait. As the trial testimony
Crotty ruled the Alnic to be 20% at fault while the McCain’s fault was 80%. Interestingly, Alnic’s fault included its post-impact omissions, which is rarely seen.
revealed, the McCain was cruising alongside and overtaking the oil tanker. Thus, the tanker had the right of way under navigation rules. The McCain lost steering and veered left suddenly into the path of the tanker. Alnic’s bow pierced the McCain’s port side which flooded the McCain’s compartments with seawater within seconds. In re Energetic Tank, 607 F.Supp 3d at 329.
Prior to impact, the tanker captain was staring in the cross-hairs of a U.S. Navy warship cutting right across its bow. But the captain apparently froze. Crotty determined from the fact and expert testimony that the tanker kept steaming ahead in the direction of the McCain without timely reducing speed, stopping or taking the ship off autopilot.
With the tanker still on autopilot, the Alnic’s bow was forced to its left due to the impact. The ship autocorrected to the right and sheered through the McCain’s hull, killing 10 unwary Navy sailors asleep in their bunks.
The injury claimants argued that the ship should have been placed in manual steering within a traffic separation scheme. This is not a foreign concept. The Board of Commissioners of Pilots in New York (on which the author serves) has a policy and procedure that requires all vessels navigating in pilotage waters to be manually steered “by an alert and attentive member of the vessel’s crew.” This includes cruise ships arriving in New York.
Alnic’s Limitation Action
The admiralty proceeding was commenced in New York by the tanker owner (Energetic Tank) filing a petition for exoneration from liability or to limit its liability to $16,768.00, which was the post-casualty value of the Alnic. 46 U.S.C. §30501. A limitation action is a standard maritime defense afforded to any vessel owner, including a foreign ship owner who is either sued here or invokes United States as the jurisdiction.
The tanker was Liberian-flagged and managed by a company based in Greece. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear in litigation involving the sinking of the RMS Titanic that a foreign vessel owner is entitled to the same statutory maritime defenses afforded to a U.S. owner. Ocean Steam Navigation v. Mellar, 213 U.S. 718 (1914); See also, James E. Mercante, “In the Wake of The Titanic: An Unsinkable Law”, New York Law Journal, April 12, 2012. A limitation action allows all claims to be asserted in one proceeding against the vessel owner (like an interpleader).
Here, the claims included damages to both ships, multiple personal injuries and 10 fatalities. The military personnel were precluded by Supreme Court precedent (Feres Doctrine) from bringing suit against the United States for injuries arising out of or in the course of activity incident to military service. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950).
To add insult to injury, the commanding officer was court-martialed and found guilty of dereliction of duty. The executive officer and other senior ranking officers were disciplined, effectively ending Navy career paths. The Navy issued a scathing report that was admitted in evidence.
The Target-Joint and Several Liability
The petitioner (owner of the Alnic) fought vigorously at trial to prove the McCain was 100% at fault. This was the only outcome that would sit well with the tanker owner because the military personnel were barred from suing the United States, and therefore took aim at the tanker. But, more importantly, under the maritime law of joint and several liability, Alnic was well aware that had it been found even 1% at fault, the service member injury and death claimants would recover the entirety of the judgments from the tanker owner.
This scenario became a stark reality when Crotty ruled the Alnic to be 20% at fault while the McCain’s fault was 80%. Interestingly, Alnic’s fault included its post-impact omissions, which is rarely seen. After the crash, Alnic failed to timely stop engines, and took no action to switch to manual steering. The McCain’s faults were legion, including loss of steering, crew ignorance of the high tech steering controls, multiple navigation rule violations, no danger signal sounded, unaware that one screen touch could have stopped the ship.
Pyrrhic Victory
The parties stipulated to the damages sustained to the two ships with the high-tech Naval warship McCain suffering $185 million in damages. The Alnic damages were only $442,445. Thus, while 20% apportionment of fault may seem like a win for the Alnic, it was far from it. Under joint and several liability, the tanker owner was obligated to pay 20% of the McCain’s $185 million in damages, amounting to nearly $37 million dollars. The United States (which had the larger allocation of fault) was obligated to pay the tanker 80% of its damages, only $354,000.
Accordingly, with the tanker owner also now facing the totality of the injury and death awards, the Alnic interests argued that despite the Feres Doctrine’s direct lawsuit preclusion, the Alnic should be entitled to contribution and/or indemnity from the United Sates for its 80% allocation of fault.
The district court rejected this argument and Alnic took this legal issue up on appeal together with the apportionment of 20% fault. Findings of fact as to apportionment of fault in a collision case are subject to the difficulty to surmount ‘clearly erroneous’ standard of proof on appeal. Crotty cited precedent that there is “no formula for apportioning liability.” The allocation requires consideration of matters not readily amenable to precise analysis but that percentages be accompanied by “sufficient explanation to provide a reviewing court with some general understanding of the basis for the decision.” 607 F.Supp 3d at 360.
Limitation Action
The district court also considered Alnic’s defense of limitation of liability to the tanker’s value. The act protects the vessel owner from unlimited vicarious liability for damages caused by on board negligence of the captain or crew. Tanden v. Captain’s Core Marina of Bridgeport, 752 F.3d 239, 244 (2d Cir. 2014).
The court ruled that petitioner having failed to prove at trial that it (as owners of the tanker) lacked privity or knowledge of the acts and omissions that led to the collision, Alnic’s petition to limit its liability was denied. See 607 F.Supp 3d at 371. Lack of proper crew training and crew competence were shoreside management issues.
Choice of law was and remains important in this case. The district court applied the federal maritime law of the United States in its collision liability analysis. But, despite the Alnic having chosen to file its petition here and all claims are by U.S. citizens, the court vowed to apply the law of Singapore to the injury and death claimants’ remedies. In the matter of Energetic Tank, 2020 WL 114517 (SDNY 2020). This issue was argued on appeal as well and awaits ruling, with claimants suggesting that U.S. law should apply as well to damages.
There has been a call on for quite some time for Naval Surface Warfare Officers to qualify and obtain licenses issued by the U.S. Coast Guard (like Merchant Mariners) to operate ships. The McCain and similar Navy ship collisions perhaps makes this a Mayday call. Meanwhile, the sailor families await their day in court and fair compensation for their loss.
Written by C. Briggs Johnson
New York’s highest Court (the Court of Appeals) has just announced a major expansion of Labor Law section 241(6) liability against those who own or perform general contractor services for buildings undergoing construction, excavation, or demolition.
In Bazdaric v. Almah Partner LLC, the Court expanded the scope of industrial code section 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) (i.e., the slip and fall code) by announcing that a “plastic covering” or tarp was a “foreign substance” within the meaning of that code. This is a dramatic departure from the other specifically enumerated slippery conditions listed in that code (“Ice, snow, water, [and] grease), which all deal with liquid or transient conditions. In other words, reading a plastic tarp as “any other foreign substance” seems to cut against the intent of the code at the time it was written.
And this is precisely what the defendants argued under the doctrine of ejusdem generis (that general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words). The Court rejected that doctrine and held that “because it would have been impossible to operate the escalator” where plaintiff worked and fell “if covered with plastic”, that therefore the plastic tarp “was, by definition a substance foreign to the escalator.”
Of course, while many of us might disagree with that interpretation of the industrial code, it is now the law of this State. It is therefore another crucial component to be aware of when defending construction accident cases going forward given the high exposure usually associated with those cases.
On February 16, 2024, following a re-trial, Matthew Vitucci obtained a defense verdict in Supreme Court, New York County before the Honorable James D’Auguste on behalf of our clients, a cooperative apartment owner and its property manager. Plaintiff alleged she was injured by falling snow and ice while walking on the sidewalk in front of our clients’ building. Plaintiff claimed she sustained severe brain injuries including concussion, post-concussion syndrome with severe cognitive after-effects including: loss of memory, inability to perform basic functions including reading, maintaining relationships and working at her job; plaintiff further alleged that she sustained additional injuries from the impact with the falling ice including loss of hearing, a dislocated jaw, injuries to the cranial nerves resulting in trigeminal neuralgia, fibromyalgia, and traumatic epilepsy with seizures.
Plaintiff brought a negligence action against the building owner and property manager, alleging that our clients had notice of a hazardous condition caused by snow and ice accumulating on exterior surfaces of the building. Plaintiff further argued that our clients should have installed ‘ice guards’ to prevent snow and ice from falling to the sidewalk below, and that our clients should have closed off the sidewalk around their building. The first trial, also handled by Mr. Vitucci, resulted in a verdict for the Defendants. Plaintiff successfully appealed the verdict arguing that certain video evidence was wrongfully precluded by the Court.
Mr. Vitucci argued during the initial trial that, in fact, the snow and ice had fallen from two New York City owned large trees that overhung the sidewalk. Furthermore, even if the snow and ice did come from the building, Mr. Vitucci argued our clients had no notice that such an event could occur as there had never been a similar incident prior to the date of loss. Therefore, our clients had no duty to install ice guards or close the sidewalk on the day of the accident.
During the re-trial, the defendant’s liability witnesses (the building doorman and property manager) both were subpoenaed by Plaintiff’s counsel and following harsh questioning, reversed their testimony at the earlier trial and related that the ice and snow did in all likelihood fall from the building, that there had been prior incidents at the building with falling ice causing the building to have to cordon off adjacent sidewalks, and that in view of a warmer weather forecast for the date of the accident that the sidewalk should have been shut in the hours prior to the 10 am incident.
Despite the damaging testimony, Mr. Vitucci argued that the Defendants could not be found to have acted unreasonably on the morning of the accident as the video that had been precluded in the first trial and introduced in the second, provided evidence that none of the buildings in the surrounding area had cordoned off their adjacent sidewalks on the morning of the accident either.
Plaintiff sought recovery of 4.6 million dollars for the injuries alleged. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendants after a twenty-minute deliberation.
GVK’s appellate practice chair, C. Briggs Johnson, recently secured a major appellate victory in a Labor Law action. In Vasquez v. Manhattan College (App. Div. First Department Case No.: 2023-01676), plaintiff alleged that he injured himself on a construction project when he fell off a ladder while removing asbestos for our client (and his employer) in the basement of Leo Hall, a building owned by Manhattan College in the Bronx. Plaintiff demanded $10.5 million dollars, and the College looked to our client to indemnify them for the accident. On appeal, we proved that no indemnity obligation existed regarding plaintiff’s accident.
GVK attorney Bryan Schwartz and his team successfully dismissed Manhattan College’s contractual indemnity claims against our client on the grounds that the newer agreement between the two only had an indemnity obligation running in favor of our client and not Manhattan College. Later, Manhattan College found another, older agreement covering asbestos work a year or so earlier at the College. The College argued that the older agreement was the main agreement between the College and our client, and that the newer agreement merely supplemented the older agreement.
The Appellate Division disagreed and found our arguments more persuasive: that the newer agreement was separately negotiated; that the newer agreement unambiguously provided no indemnification for the college; that the newer agreement covered a different portion of the Leo Hall building; that the newer agreement had a separate project cost; and the newer agreement made no reference to the older agreement that Manhattan College found.
This is yet another poignant reminder of how every word in a construction contract truly does matter, and it reinforces the immense value of having a skilled appellate practitioner to investigate and dissect every single word in such contracts, which can be the crucial difference between – as it was here – avoiding Labor Law exposure.
GVK recently obtained a dismissal of a plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) claim arising out of a tragic construction site accident with a demand of $30 million dollars. Plaintiff claimed that he injured himself on a construction project when he drove a scissor lift off a temporary ramp on a construction project located in Brooklyn. Our clients were the owner and general contractor for the building, which means that we were first in line for the potential and massive exposure of the extraordinary protections of Labor Law 240(1) (the falling object and falling worker statute in New York). GVK made several highly nuanced and sophisticated arguments in support of a dismissal of that claim.
And the Court accepted one of those arguments. Although plaintiff argued that because he fell from an elevation on a construction project that he was automatically entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law 240(1), the Court relied on the ample case law from our memorandum of law showing that the temporary ramp off which plaintiff fell “was not a tool use in the performance of the plaintiff’s work. Rather, it was a ‘passageway’ from one place of work to another. “The distinction is critical”, the Court continued, “because an accident arising on such a passageway does not lie within the purview” of Labor Law 240(1). In other words, the ramp was not the functional equivalent of a safety device enumerated and required by Labor Law 240(1).
The decision emphasizes the importance of having skilled appellate and Labor Law attorneys in defending these types of cases, because these types of arguments can be (and often are) frequently overlooked. In this case, the decision has the potential to save our clients millions of dollars.
If you would like any more information about the decision and a copy of our briefs, or if you would like GVK to assist your client in the defense (including motion practice and any appellate work) in these types of high exposure cases in Labor Law matters, please feel free to contact: Howard Klar, Jay Rava, or C. Briggs Johnson at your convenience.
With the previous announced addition of the attorneys of Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante LLP (“RFFM”) to Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP (“GVK”), we are excited by the expansion and strengthening of our New York No-Fault insurance law practice. Three new partners from RFFM, Charles T. Rubin, David Boucher, and Michael Tomsky, join as experts in the area of New York No-Fault law, enriching the firm’s capabilities and commitment to excellence in legal services. Additionally, Sarah Rubin joined GVK as a partner in late November 2023 from Lewis Brisbois where she served as Managing Attorney of the firm’s No-Fault department for almost 14 years and will also be a team manager, further strengthening the practice.
GVK’s No-Fault department is involved in all aspects of the practice, from submission of claims to litigation and larger scale coverage actions. GVK’s primary goal is to think outside the facially rigid rules imposed by regulation and to identify the avenues that provide clients with an extra layer of protection against specious claims. The firm regularly conducts SIU investigations as to the legitimacy of reported collisions and subsequent treatment by taking examinations under oath of claimants and medical providers. The firm has led the industry in initiating declaratory judgment actions, which have been an effective tool in cutting off claims and, at the same time, reducing fees and costs for its clients. The declaratory actions have been used to attack all claims resulting from a single accident or in larger actions relating to licensing and RICO violations by medical providers.
GVK also maintains an active litigation and arbitration practice and regularly conducts trial, arbitration hearings and appeals. This Team has obtained excellent results for its clients, particularly in defending fraud claims, including some of the leading New York State decisions on this issue. The Team has obtained favorable decisions, protecting insurers from having to justify examination under oath requests post hoc and piercing corporate veils of providers who seek to use the corporate entity to shield themselves from fraudulent behavior.
Additionally, the GVK Team regularly offers training seminars to insurance carriers, self insurers and to third party administrators. The seminars focus on recent trends in NY No-Fault law, proper claims handling and how to comply with the complex New York No-Fault statute and regulations.
The Team’s expertise lies in managing a substantial caseload of No-Fault matters for both traditional insurance companies and self-insured entities in a high-volume environment. The Team’s proactive insights and expertise make them influential contributors in the field of No-Fault Litigation.
On December 29, 2023, Governor Hochul vetoed the latest version of the “Grieving Families Act,” which the State Legislature passed in June 2023. She did so the day after the Legislature delivered the Act to her for consideration, despite intense lobbying efforts by organizations led by the Plaintiffs’ bar. It was reported that she declined to meet with the families of wrongful death claimants last week to discuss the legislation. The original Act was vetoed in January 2023.
The Acts attempted to expand damages recoverable in wrongful death suits where recovery is presently limited to the “pecuniary losses” of a decedent’s distributees, such as the decedent’s future lost earnings. Although case law allows recovery for a decedent’s pre-death conscious pain and suffering and for loss of parental support, guidance, assistance and inheritance, these damages are often difficult to prove. The original Act sought to permit a decedent’s survivors (vaguely defined as “close family members”) to recover for their own “emotional anguish” or pain and suffering and to extend the applicable statute of limitations from 2 to 3.5 years. It also sought to take immediate, retroactive effect in all pending wrongful death suits.
In vetoing the original bill, Governor Hochul noted her concerns with the scope, financial impact and other “significant unintended consequences” of the Act, including the expansion of the beneficiary class, and the impact of increased litigation, insurance and health care costs on lower-income families, small businesses, health care workers and municipal hospitals. She called for serious evaluation and study of the financial impact of these expansive changes on the statute. She agreed with opponents of the Act that NY State’s constitutional prohibition against limits on jury damage verdicts must be studied and considered. This refers to the fact that although most states allow for the expanded classes of beneficiaries and types of damage claims the Act sought to add, they all also have laws capping damage verdicts, which NY State does not.
The modifications made to the original Act to purportedly address the Governor’s concerns were limited and did not provide any indication that a “serious evaluation and study of the Act’s financial impact” on businesses, hospitals and municipalities had been conducted. The Plaintiffs’ bar has vowed to introduce yet another bill seeking to codify the attempted expansion of NY’s Wrongful Death Statute in the next Legislative session. We will continue to monitor their efforts.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Howard Klar or William Parra.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP is pleased to announce the partners, associates and staff of Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante LLP are joining the firm effective January 1, 2024. The combined firm will continue as Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP. Terry Rubin, Ken Fiorella and Bruce Friedman will assume management positions at the firm. James Mercante will head the firm’s Maritime Group.
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP is also pleased to announce Andrea Silk and Melissa Zoldan-Leite have assumed senior leadership positions at the firm. Andrea, a partner in the firm’s Construction Group and Alternative Fee Practice, has been named Managing Partner. Melissa, a partner in the firm’s Professional Liability and Healthcare Practices, has been named Chief Operations Officer. Senior Managing Partner, Howard Klar, commented “Andrea and Melissa bring outstanding leadership and different perspectives to the management of the firm. We are grateful for their commitment to the firm”.
The combined firm brings together over 100 lawyers in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area, with offices in Manhattan, Long Island, Westchester and Bergen County, New Jersey, creating one of the largest regional firms in the geographical area. The consolidation of practices brings together decades of experience in the insurance industry to better serve its clients.
The core business of both firms remains insurance litigation and coverage, for domestic, international insurers and self-insured entities. The addition of Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante, LLP adds additional expertise to Gallo Vitucci Klar LLP in the areas of insurance coverage, first party property, reinsurance, marine and no-fault. The firm will continue to be dedicated to providing the highest standard of legal services in our industry, as well as offering an innovative approach to our clients.
According to Howard Klar, “Rubin, Fiorella is a firm with long-standing relationships with its clients and extremely well-respected practices that will allow us to better serve our clients. We have worked closely with several of their partners over the years and share the same culture and commitment to our clients”.
“GVK is a strong partner, and the combined firm, offers a strategic advantage and opportunity for sustained growth. Everyone at our firm is excited about the combination of clients and resources and joining GVK, a firm with highly regarded operations”, commented Terry Rubin, Managing Partner of Rubin, Fiorella, Friedman & Mercante LLP.
A lower New York court has recently issued a decision which upset what was thought of as settled law in relation to an insured’s right to attorney fees in a DJ action. In the Utica v. Crystal Wall case, 2023 NY Slip Op 23362, the court ruled that if the insured is successful in defending against a DJ action that sought to disclaim the right to indemnify only, it could recover attorney fees. See attached decision.
Key to the court’s decision was a finding that the suit was a broad sided approach to limit any obligation to indemnify against the claims asserted and was filed at a very early stage of the underlying case, where facts had not been fully developed. One of the opening paragraphs in the decision emphasized this point, stating:
An insurance-coverage declaratory-judgment action is “premature”—and therefore subject to dismissal—”where the complaint in the underlying action alleges several grounds of liability, some of which invoke the coverage of the policy, and where the issues of indemnification and coverage hinge on facts which will necessarily be decided in the underlying action.”
* * *
Utica effectively concedes that all but one of the requested declarations “depend on facts developed in the Underlying Action,” such that their declaratory-judgment claim is, to that extent, not ripe for resolution.
In our opinion, the court felt it was unreasonable to place the insured in the position to defend an against an action that could not be decided on all of the grounds asserted and, therefore, awarded attorney fees despite the fact there was no prior direct precedent for the decision. It is too early to determine whether there will be an appeal of the decision. The expenses associated with the DJ are not likely to be significant – the case was at the pleadings stage when the motion was filed. Utica might want to simply resolve the case and not poke the bears that sit on the First Department bench. The appellate courts in New York are not always insurer friendly and, when given the chance, might strengthen policyholder rights. That said, Utica might be concerned about the impact of the decision in other similarly filed cases.
The good news is that with respect to cases involving the pursuit of additional insured or priority of coverage cases, the decision does not have an impact. These cases typically involve a claim by one insurer vs another insurer. There are no fees to be reimbursed to an insured if the DJ is unsuccessful. We do not see the courts going so far as to create an “exception to the American rule” in insurer vs insurer suits.
To the extent that an insurer is in the posture of affirmatively disputing a party’s right to coverage, the decision does raise some concerns. However, if there is a complete denial of any duty to defend and indemnify, insurers rarely file a DJ action for the very reasons the court notes – that if an insured prevails in an action brought by an insurer on the duty to defend, the insurer bears the costs of the DJ action. Typically, an insurer waits for push back from the insured or their filing of a DJ. In circumstances where a reservation of rights has been issued and the duty to indemnify is the issue, picking and choosing the right case to bring suit has been and remains the guidepost. The decision in the Utica case just accentuates this point. Parenthetically, we note that the court did not rule out the possibility of bringing a DJ action for stakeholder purposes in an appropriate case where the underlying factual issues will be resolved in a reasonably timely manner stating as follows:
Although a court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment absent a justiciable controversy, a court does have discretion, in appropriate circumstances, to stay an unripe declaratory-judgment action, instead of dismissing it altogether. (See Allstate Ins. Co. v Kemp, 144 AD2d 853, 854 [3d Dept 1988] [affirming order that stayed a premature declaratory-judgment action].) This court concludes, however, that staying Utica’s action would not be appropriate here. The underlying action is complex and slow-moving. It is unclear to this court—and Utica does not attempt to provide clarity—when the factual questions bearing on Utica’s potential duty to indemnify the Crystal Entities will be resolved in that action. This court declines to leave the current action in a holding pattern for an open-ended (and presumably lengthy) period. This action is therefore dismissed without prejudice to its renewal once it is no longer premature.
If the case is affirmed on appeal, it is unknow whether the next logical step is for courts to award attorney fees to an insured who prosecutes a DJ action and prevails on the duty to defend issue. We are aware that currently some federal courts are more receptive to this argument than state courts. It would not surprise us if the NY state courts adopted this position down the road. We always though it odd that the if the insurer started a DJ action to disclaim the duty to defend and lost, it paid the insured’s attorney fee in defending the DJ but if the insured prevailed in its DJ on the same issue against the insurer, there was no obligation to pay the insured’s legal fees in prosecuting the DJ action.
We will continue to monitor the progress of this case and the related issue of the obligations of an insurer to pay legal fees in connection with a DJ action.
On October 5th, GVK had the privilege of joining hands with the Bowery Mission for a day of volunteering that made a meaningful difference in the lives of New Yorkers in need.
The Bowery Mission is dedicated to fostering the well-being and success of New Yorkers who are striving to overcome homelessness and marginalization. They achieve this by offering a range of compassionate services and by cultivating a transformative sense of community.
With the generous support of individuals like you, they extend a helping hand to their neighbors through various initiatives, including Compassionate Care, Residential & Community Programs, Transitional Housing & Alumni Programs, and specialized Children’s Programs. Through these efforts, the Bowery Mission strives to empower individuals in need, providing them with the resources and support necessary for a brighter future.
GVK enthusiastically participated in a day of volunteer service at The Bowery Mission to provide lunch to those facing challenging circumstances. It was a humbling experience, and we were deeply moved by the opportunity to make a positive impact on the lives of our fellow New Yorkers who rely on the Mission’s support.
Our dedication to community involvement and giving back remains an essential part of who we are, and we’re proud to continue supporting organizations like The Bowery Mission in their mission to uplift and empower our neighbors in need.
Special thanks to Hugh Linnehan and the rest of The Bowery Mission team for a warm welcome and an eye-opening experience. We’re excited about future volunteering with The Bowery Mission and urge you to join us in supporting their mission!
