Noreen P. Kemether, Esquire and Justin A. Britton, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey Office obtained summary judgment on behalf of (1) a condominium association, (2) its property management company, and (3) an individual affiliated with the association/management, in an action brought by a unit owner and his wife arising out of allegations of negligence and fraud related to a condominium-wide roofing and siding construction project. The litigation has been ongoing for roughly five years and involved extensive fact and expert discovery, as well as significant motion practice. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of these defendants primarily based on the Business Judgment Rule, resulting in their dismissal from the case. The matter remains pending as to other parties, including contractors, subcontractors, and the prior owner of the unit.

Casey G. McCurdy, Esquire of MOODK’s Philadelphia and New Jersey offices obtained a dismissal of all claims against his client in a coverage dispute between insurance carriers pending in New Jersey. The underlying matter involved an automobile accident in New York involving a commercial vehicle. The insurance carrier covering the tractor brought suit against the insurer for the trailer and MOODK’s client, the insurer of the company whose driver allegedly was operating the commercial vehicle at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that MOODK’s client owed primary coverage due to the MCS-90 endorsement attached to the client’s motor carrier policy. MOODK filed an early dispositive motion arguing that although there is an MCS-90 endorsement attached to the policy, such endorsement is not triggered until a final judgment is rendered against the insured resulting from an accident caused by negligence in the underlying matter. MOODK further argued that the MCS-90 endorsement, standing alone, does not provide any duty to defend an insured. Finally, MOODK argued that the MCS-90 endorsement does not generally apply to disputes between insurers, because it acts as a surety to protect the public and provides coverage only when there is no insurance coverage available to cover the damages up to the required limits. The Court agreed with MOODK’s arguments and dismissed all claims against its client.

MOODK Attorney John Borelli, Esquire obtained summary judgment in a Philadelphia premises liability matter.  Plaintiff, who was paralyzed from the waist down, alleged he fractured his ankle as he attempted to enter a building owned by MOODK’s client, which the client rented to the Co-Defendant, who operated a gun store on the property.  Plaintiff, who was confined to a wheelchair arrived at the property with a friend.  Plaintiff’s friend pulled Plaintiff’s wheelchair up a set of steps so they could enter the building.  Plaintiff alleged that while his friend was pulling him up the steps, Plaintiff’s foot became caught in a railing resulting in his ankle fracture.  Plaintiff alleged that the property violated the ADA because it did not have an entrance that was accessible for people with disabilities.  Plaintiff further contended that MOODK’s client and the Co-Defendant failed to maintain the property and permitted a dangerous condition to exist.  Through written discovery and depositions, MOODK was able to show that Plaintiff could not prove that his alleged injury occurred because of his ankle getting caught in the railing.  Further, through MOODK’s expert, they were able to show that the building met all applicable building codes and that the entrance did not violate the ADA.   

MOODK Attorney Noreen Kemether, Esquire obtained dismissal of a lawsuit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleged she was discriminated against due to her religion in violation of Title VII when she was terminated as a result of posting on her private Facebook page a derogatory and offensive meme. Plaintiff was the Club Manager and only paid employee of the local organization and claimed she was a joint employee of the national organization. The court ruled, on a motion to dismiss after limited discovery on jurisdiction, that the local organization was not subject to Title VII because it had fewer than 15 employees and that Plaintiff was not jointly employed by the national organization.