Robin Sammer Behn, Esquire and Torri Yeargins, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey office obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a premises liability case stemming from alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiff due to a defective sidewalk. MOODK’s attorneys were able to show that their client was the owner of a residential property adjacent to the sidewalk, which Plaintiff did not have evidence to dispute. MOODK’s attorneys argued that under New Jersey law their client did not have a duty maintain the adjacent sidewalk and thus the client could not be held liable. They further argued that Plaintiff had failed to produce an expert report showing that the sidewalk was defective. The Superior Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of MOODK’s client resulting in a complete dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against him.

John M. Borelli, Esquire of MOODK’s New Jersey office secured dismissal of claims brought against an insurance carrier seeking reimbursement of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits paid in a New Jersey trucking accident. MOODK argued that its client was not the insurer of the tortfeasor under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1(b) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act was inapplicable under the factual circumstances.

Attorney Brett Norton of MOODK’s Delaware office secured a dismissal of a defamation and negligent training lawsuit against MOODK’s client in Wilmington, DE.  Plaintiff alleged that MOODK’s client defamed him when one of its employees informed him that the bathrooms were currently closed because of unsafe conditions and that defendant negligently trained its staff by refusing plaintiff the use of the bathroom. MOODK moved for dismissal of the claims, which the trial court granted holding that the employee’s statements were not defamatory because they were opinions and not fact.  Furthermore, the trial could held that the negligent training claim failed because plaintiff failed to plead a cognizable duty because the duty to train must be established by an underlying tort, which did not exist based upon the pleaded facts.  Lastly, the trial court held that plaintiff’s claim for damages was insufficiently pleaded in so much as plaintiff did not allege any physical injury arising out of the alleged tortious actions.