Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 173 — September 6, 1996 STATE COURT CASES INSURANCE — INDEMNIFICATION — SEXUAL ABUSE — TEACHERS 23-2-9965 E.H. v. Cigna Property and Casualty Co., et al., App. Div. (20 pp.) The trial judge erred in compelling insurer to provide coverage to teacher in student s civil suit for emotional distress arising out of teacher s sexual abuse conviction, because, the underlying policy and endorsement together, the teacher s sexual impropriety was not contemplated under the coverage for “harm caused by something a teacher does or does not do while performing his or her duties as a member of (the) teaching staff, and, further, the intentional nature of the harm must be presumed, leading to the conclusion that an “occurrence within the meaning of the policy did not take place. NEGLIGENCE — TORT CLAIMS ACT 31-2-9966 Barbara Henderson Golden, et al. v. Nancy Hamstra, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Since plaintiffs offered no evidence to prove that defendant was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, the motion judge properly concluded that the Tort Claims Act applied; and, since the evidence did not support a conclusion that plaintiff s injuries were “permanent within the meaning of the Act, her case was properly dismissed. PHYSICIAN/PATIENT 29-2-9967 Jane Barbieri, et al. v. Southern Ocean County Hospital, et al., App. Div. (11 pp.) Verdict of $5,180,000 in medical malpractice case is disproportionate to plaintiff s foot injury, which causes her to have a slight limp and diminution of strenuous physical activity, but does not entirely restrict such activity, and a new damages trial is ordered. PRODUCT LIABILITY 32-2-9968 Pierre Roy v. Werner Ladder Co., et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) In a case for injuries suffered as a result of a ladder collapse, (1) in view of the severity and consequences of plaintiff s wrist injury, and its effect on his occupational plans, the $250,000 verdict in this case is not excessive and is affirmed, and (2) the judge s limitation on defendant s expert s “demonstrations at trial was within her discretion and not erroneous. FEDERAL COURT CASES ATTORNEY/CLIENT — DISQUALIFICATION 04-7-9969 Sebastian Cardona v. General Motors Corp.; Louis Marazzo v. Chevrolet Motor Div. of the General Motors Corp., U.S. Dist. Ct. (29 pp.) In “Lemon Law cases, magistrate judge properly disqualified plaintiffs lawyer — who had previously worked for defendant General Motors — because GM s claims and litigation philosophy and its methods and procedures for defending claims were known to the attorney, combined with the fact that lemon law cases, while not factually identical, are undeniably similar, such that each of the plaintiffs cases must be deemed “substantially related” to the cases the attorney handled while at GM. [Filed Aug. 8, 1996.][Approved for publication.] ATTORNEY/CLIENT — EXPERT TESTIMONY 04-7-9970 Polyns Bieregu v. Marc A. Calello, U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Since it is unclear if the magistrate judge, in deciding that plaintiff did not establish good cause for appointment of an expert in his legal malpractice claim, determined whether plaintiff actually required such expert testimony to prove his case, defendant’s motion for summary judgment cannot be decided and matter is remanded for such a determination. [Filed Aug. 14, 1996.] CORRECTIONS 13-7-9971 John Longo v. James F. Barbo, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 pp.) On inmate’s claim that his rights were violated because his asthma was aggravated by being subjected to wool and other inmates’ smoking, prison defendants are entitled to qualified immunity even if plaintiff could establish that the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act applied to prison inmates, and therefore defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is granted. [Filed Aug. 9, 1996.] INSURANCE — REINSURANCE 23-7-9972 Mutual Benefit Life Ins., et al. v. George G. Zimmerman, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (69 pp.) In litigation stemming from defendants’ acceptance of major medical risks in a reinsurance pool, insurer’s motion for summary judgment is granted because of defendants’ breaches of fiduciary duty, and defendants’ motions for summary judgment on their tort, punitive damage and RICO claims are denied. [Filed Aug. 8, 1996.][Approved for publication.] PRODUCT LIABILITY 32-7-9973 Lourdes Houghtaling, et al. v. Unisys Corp., etc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (13 pp.) Both design defect and failure to warn claims — in postal worker’s suit for hand injuries allegedly caused by the repetitive use of defendant’s letter-sorting machine — are dismissed, since defendant’s tort liability under N.J. law is preempted by the government contractor defense. [Filed Aug. 7, 1996.] A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions THIS WEEK IN THE The Third Circuit allows a Prudential employee to sue her former boss for intentional infliction of emotional distress. See page 1 of the Sept. 9 Law Journal.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.