 |
Middle Atlantic States
Insurers share bulk of $36 million recovery.
As part of a $36 million out-of-court settlement, more than a dozen insurance carriers recovered a significant amount of the payments they made to their insureds as a result of the August 2008 fire at the Riverwalk Millennium Apartment Complex in suburban Philadelphia. The Law Office of Robert A. Stutman represented seven major insurance companies and also served as Court-appointed Liaison Counsel for all other insurance companies that insured tenants and businesses at Riverwalk. The fire started at a nearby construction site, allegedly the result of the reckless use of a welder's torch, and jumped to the occupied Riverwalk buildings. This settlement — coming just one year after the devastating fire — was the result of investigative actions taken by the Stutman firm within days after the blaze was extinguished. The firm's experts determined the cause of the fire and retained the necessary evidence to prove the case in court, resulting in an early and significant recovery for the insurers.Jury verdict against contractor obtained for fire cause by careless smoking.
A contractor who was smoking on the job was the likely cause of a Pennsylvania fire at an outlet store in Marshalls Creek. The 20-year-old building was in the process of being renovated into a day care center. The building's electricity was off at the time of the fire. Investigators determined that a discarded, smoldering cigarette ignited the aged attic insulation, which over time loses fire-retardant qualities. There was no direct evidence of careless smoking, it was a circumstantial case. The Stutman firm demonstrated that the defendant could not offer a credible explanation for the fire. A Monroe County jury awarded $700,000 to the insurance company and the contractor will have to pay for the damages.Expert identifies contractor as source of gas explosion.
A gas explosion occurred in New Jersey nursing home. The Stutman firm retained a HVAC expert shortly after the loss and established that the plumbing contractor let out too much gas while trying to re-light pilots in a boiler. A settlement of $287,500 represented 82% of recoverable damages.Improper installation to blame for fire in pellet stove.
A fire inside a residential home in New York was caused by a pellet stove that was improperly installed in the home some 20+ years before the fire. The original installer could not be identified but Stutman's attorneys obtained a 65% recovery against the contractor who made repairs to the stove several months before the fire. The contractor filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the repairs made to the stove were minimal; therefore, it had no duty to inspect for and uncover all possible problems/defects. The Stutman firm deposed the contractor’s employees and established that they actually looked at the defective area of the stove and should have known that it was an obvious hazard. While the motion for summary judgment was pending, the contractor settled for six figures.Drug user caused sprinkler discharge damage to hotel.
The Stutman firm investigated a sprinkler system activation in a hotel in New York which was caused by a guest who was an apparent drug user. Through coordination with police, the Stutman firm established that the hotel guest’s actions constituted negligence for which insurance coverage was available under the culprit’s homeowner’s policy. Settlement of $187,441 represented 98% of recoverable damages.Waiver doesn’t protect defendant for recovery for water damage.
An insured on the second floor of a 20-story building in New York City suffered damages from a flood emanating from a floor above. In particular, a break in a ‘T’ connection in the sprinkler system on the vacant third floor led to the flood and damaged the floors below. The ensuing water went undetected until a first floor retail tenant notified building management of water coming down into their rental space. After a lengthy period of time, the water was shut off; no water flow alarm was ever sent to the monitoring company and the fire department was not summoned. Stutman’s client insured the tenant, and the landlord was protected by a waiver of subrogation within the lease. The Stutman firm was able to obtain a substantial six-figure settlement by arguing that the waiver of subrogation was limited in scope and did not extend to the type of insurance policy that was issued by our client.Careful investigation “persuades” defendant to be truthful.
Contractors working outside of a Pennsylvania home struck a gas line near the drainage system for the property. The gas traveled through the drainage system and filled the entire property with gas. An explosion occurred destroying everything on the property when the gas came in contact with several ignition sources. The contractor who struck the gas line contacted the gas company who responded approximately thirty minutes after the gas line was struck. The gas company protocol required that they conduct a “perimeter test” to determine the presence of the gas around the perimeter of the home. The gas company employee stated to several governmental authorities that he indeed conducted the perimeter test and did not detect gas. Stutman's investigation revealed that if such a perimeter test had been conducted, the gas company would have detected the high amount of gas prior to the explosion. When confronted with the facts of the investigation during a deposition, the gas company employee admitted that he lied to the investigators when he stated that he found the presence of gas while conducting the perimeter test. Thereafter, the matter was amicably resolved for a substantial six-figure settlement.Statute of Repose requires quick action.
Stutman’s New Loss Department received a call about a 12-year-old barn in Pennsylvania that was collapsing during a heavy snow storm. In order to ensure that the statute of repose would not bar recovery, quick-thinking Stutman Law attorneys filed suit almost immediately. If suit had not been filed right away, the case may have been lost. The court ruled in the Insured’s favor due to the builder of the barn failing to install proper roof truss bracing.OSHA requirements point to negligent “hot work”.
Fire occurred inside residential home in Pennsylvania that was caused by an HVAC contractor who installed a new furnace and utilized a torch to do the job. The Stutman firm obtained a 90% recovery in this case by showing that the HVAC contractor failed to follow OSHA requirements for hot work.Hazardous investigation leads to substantial subrogation recovery.
A massive poultry caging system housing over 100,000 laying hens in Pennsylvania provided state-of-the-art equipment for managing a poultry house. But a catastrophic collapse led to a difficult and complicated investigation. Throughout the investigation, the team of investigators, insurance officials and Stutman attorneys worked to establish the cause of the collapse, while faced with pressure from local officials and the surrounding community to clean up the mess before the investigation was complete.The cage system was constructed at the site from materials that were designed and manufactured abroad, and was the largest cage system of its kind to be installed in the U.S. It housed the chickens in a revolutionary coop comprised of five rows of cages stacked eight tiers high and approximately two hundred feet in length.
The health and safety of the investigators looking for the cause of the collapse was a major concern since the structural stability of the building was subject to further collapse. The structural engineer retained by Stutman concluded that the cage system was originally designed in a structurally unsound manner.
Stutman attorneys opposed the foreign manufacturer’s jurisdictional objections, which resulted in the manufacturer being subjected to jurisdiction in the U.S. Because of the Stutman team’s diligence in handling the complex investigation in the early stages of litigation, the firm settled the case for a significant but confidential amount before a single witness was deposed, thereby saving money and speeding the loss recovery for the insurer.
Victim’s family reimbursed for her “conscious pain and suffering.”
Careful investigation and expert testimony led to a substantial seven-figure settlement in a recent case of the wrongful death of a young Pennsylvania woman. A commercial vehicle driving too fast on a two-lane highway plowed into the back of a car driven by the young woman. The impact pushed her car into the opposing lane of traffic, where it was hit by an oncoming SUV.The Stutman firm took up the case for the victim’s estate against the owner and operator of the commercial van. The defendants vigorously argued that the decedent died instantaneously and was not therefore entitled to damages for conscious pain and suffering. To support this argument, the defense located an eyewitness who testified that the decedent failed to display any signs of life immediately after the accident.
Faced with this testimony, the Stutman firm secured a tape of the initial 9-1-1 call, which revealed that the defendant’s star witness had called 9-1-1 from a cell phone and advised the authorities that decedent was alive and responsive. The Stutman firm then engaged a forensic pathologist and biomechanical engineer to demonstrate how the various collisions had injured the decedent and lead to several minutes of conscious pain and suffering. The Stutman firm also retained an economist and vocation specialist to demonstrate the most likely career choices of the decedent along with her probable economic losses.
Because the Stutman firm was able to establish conscious pain and suffering along with a lifetime of economic losses, the family of the decedent obtained a significant, seven figure settlement without enduring a prolonged trial.
