Legal Developments and Risk Management Tips Impacting the Professional Liability Community.
America’s birthplace, home of the Liberty Bell, cheesesteaks and Rocky, the City of Brotherly Love is a destination for history, arts, culture…and personal injury cases. Once again, Philadelphia has been named America’s number one judicial hellhole in the annual ranking by the American Tort Reform Foundation for 2019. This is based on Philadelphia’s outrageous verdicts, amount … Continued
Over the years, we’ve shared posts regarding the nuances of Affidavit of Merit (AOM) requirements in professional malpractice actions. Of course, many states have enacted some version of an AOM requirement and we’ve discussed the significance and potential advantages from a defense perspective when a plaintiff fails to comply. By strict rule of law, the … Continued
Many jurisdictions require some version of an affidavit of merit (AOM) in order to proceed with a malpractice claim. (Here’s a helpful 50-state survey of AOM requirements LINK). In New York, CPLR Section 3012-a requires an AOM to accompany the complaint for all medical malpractice actions. Specifically, this affidavit has to declare that an attorney … Continued
In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court clarified the application of the attorney work-product doctrine in the context of an e-mail exchange to a third-party consultant. The decision addresses the question of whether the work-product doctrine in Pennsylvania applies to otherwise confidential communications sent to a public relations company.
You generally know the drill: a plaintiff has limited time to file suit. Generally, the statutory period begins when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that she has been harmed and that the defendant caused that harm. You also generally know that statute of limitations defenses are not nearly that simple. There are variables including the discovery rule and the gist of the action doctrine which may impact the argument. The continuous representation doctrine is another wrinkle that could affect whether a malpractice claim is subject to dismissal pursuant to the statute of limitations. In a recent decision, the Maine Supreme Court affirmed a dismissal of a legal malpractice claim on statute of limitations grounds and refused to apply the continuous representation doctrine.
One of the most difficult aspects of defending investor misrepresentation claims is that they naturally occur after a financial calamity. In retrospect, there is almost always an argument that a statement here, or omission there, was “misleading” in light of the company’s ultimate fate. It is for this very reason that common law imposes a heightened standard for investors attempting to bring such a claim for what is essentially statutory fraud. In a recent decision from the Third Circuit, the Court reiterated this heightened pleading standard, and the policy for doing so, in dismissing a complaint at the pleading stage.
A measure that would shorten the statute of limitations for New Jersey malpractice claims against certain licensed professionals, including attorneys, from six years to two years, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 18 in Trenton. Although a small step, this is encouraging for many New Jersey professionals, and the attorneys who defend them.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution limits the authority of courts to exercise jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. Before a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a party, the Constitution requires that the party have certain “minimum contacts” in the state where the court sits. Jurisdiction may be satisfied when the suit arises from the foreign person’s activities in the forum state. Further, with respect to foreign companies, jurisdiction may be satisfied regardless of the nature of the lawsuit if the company has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state or if it consents to jurisdiction there. Courts have been divided, however, as to what actions by a company constitute consent to jurisdiction in the forum state. For instance, does a foreign corporation’s mere registration to conduct business in a state satisfy the constitutional threshold? In two recent decisions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court resolved that it does.
One of the most common problems facing a would-be plaintiff considering a malpractice case is when to file suit. Similarly, those that defend professionals must consider whether to move to stay proceedings if applicable. Especially with accountants and attorneys, causation and damages are difficult to calculate until the underlying matter has concluded. This means that the notoriously long legal process can often come into conflict with the statute of limitations, or create evidentiary problems. The decision is whether to wait many years for the underlying action to conclude and damages to materialize, or continue with the malpractice action in the midst of unresolved issues although the facts are still fresh in witness’s minds. In a recent Texas appellate decision, the court ruled that the case should proceed immediately.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently declined to dismiss a medical malpractice case for an attorney’s failure to file a timely affidavit of merit (AOM). The court based its decision in large part on the trial court’s failure to schedule a preliminary conference (called a “Ferreira” conference in NJ) to discuss the sufficiency of the AOM. The court further stated that it would order improvements to the courts’ automated case management system to ensure the electronic notification of both the AOM filing obligation and the scheduling of such Ferreira conferences.