by KPMLAW | May 12, 2017 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Pictured Above from left to right… Lee Appleton, Nick Marrone, Joe Smith and Andy Webb. KPM is thrilled to welcome four new attorneys who bring to KPM a wealth of energy and experience. Joe Smith joins the Worker’s Compensation Practice Group in Richmond, while Nick Marrone joins the group in Fairfax serving both Virginia and Maryland. Lee Appleton has joined our General Liability team, and Andy Webb has joined KPM’s Coverage & Fraud division. Please join us in welcoming these great additions to the KPM family....
by KPMLAW | May 11, 2017 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
We are delighted to announce that Brian Cafritz, managing partner of KPM’s Retail & Restaurant Litigation Group and Claire Carr, managing partner of KPM’s Workers’ Compensation Practice Group have been selected to the 2017 Virginia Super Lawyers list. Additionally, Rachel Riordan, a partner with KPM, and Andrew Willis, an associate, have both been named to the 2017 list of Virginia Rising Stars! Super Lawyers recognizes no more than five percent of attorneys in the state. Please join us in congratulating our colleagues on this fine...
by KPMLAW | May 11, 2017 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Bob McAdam, Esq. Edited by Rachel Riordan, Esq. One of the most common workers’ compensation fact patterns is an employee sustaining any injury in a stairwell or on steps. A recent decision from the Full Commission acts as a primer on adjusting some of the most common step cases in Virginia. The Deputy Commissioner and the Full Commission in Vickers v. E & M Management, LLC, JCN VA00001141682 (March 17, 2017) provide us with some useful practice pointers. In Vickers, the claimant worked as a maintenance supervisor for his employer, and while visiting an apartment complex to perform an inspection, fell as he was descending some stairs. He described the stairway as having risers which were short and a tread which was narrow with a 1½ inch lip that “interfered with descending the steps.” He claimed to have almost fallen down the steps on two previous occasions because they were so narrow. The claimant testified that even with his heel backed all the way against the riser, his foot still hung over the step so that he had to turn his foot a little to the side in order to place his foot on the steps to descend them. On the day of the accident, the claimant had descended three steps when the heel of his right foot hit the front toe of his left foot, causing him to spin around and fall down the remaining twenty steps to the bottom. He testified in his deposition that his left foot had been sticking out over the edge of the step because his feet were so long, but...
by KPMLAW | May 11, 2017 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Author by Chris Bergin, Esq. Edited by Brian A. Cafritz, Esq. A common risk for retails is that one of its products is defective and causes an accident. For example, if a consumer buys a product from a retailer and the product causes a fire, the retailer is sued for personal injuries or property damage due to the breach of the UCC Implied Warranties. Taking this scenario one step further, could a firefighter or emergency responder who is injured by the fire or product recover against the retailer as well? Since at least 1968, the Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized and followed a common law doctrine called the “Fireman’s Rule.” The Fireman’s Rule holds that police officers, firefighters, and other public officials who are engaged in a high-risk activities as a result of their public duties, are not permitted to recover for a defendant’s simple negligence. Thus, for example, if a store or a restaurant negligently causes a fire on its property, it cannot be held civilly liable for any injury or death caused to firefighters who responded to the scene. At first blush, the Fireman’s Rule seems counterintuitive, or even cruel. However, it rests upon the sound legal doctrine of assumption of risk, which is strongly adhered to in Virginia. When a firefighter, for example, responds to an alarm, she is necessarily aware that a fire is in progress and that fire-related hazards are likely to exist. Yet her duty to respond to the fire still exists, in spite of this known danger. The firefighter is duty-bound to respond to the emergency, regardless of whether the emergency was...
by KPMLAW | May 11, 2017 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Sarah Kathryn Stahling, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. Although plaintiff’s attorneys continue to grow ever more creative with their pleadings and allegations of negligence, it seems obvious that if Driver A rear ends Driver B, it’s not Driver B’s fault. After all, he was the lead car. How was he supposed to avoid an accident with a car behind him? Couldn’t we go so far as to say, at the very least, Driver A was contributorily negligent per se and barred from recovery? Unfortunately, it’s never that simple. This will almost always be a jury issue. The Virginia Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in 2002 in Hot Shot Express v. Brooks, 264 Va. 126. In this case, the driver of a tractor trailer was traveling from Pennsylvania to Virginia. When he got to rural Virginia, he realized he had missed his delivery site and, in light of no shoulder to pull onto, stopped his vehicle in the middle of his travel lane and activated his hazard lights. When he started to pull forward again, he felt an impact at the rear of his trailer – the Plaintiff had apparently wedged her vehicle under the rear of the trailer. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s personal injury case, Hot Shot Express moved to strike her evidence on the ground that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. After all, she had plainly failed to keep a proper lookout and run into the back of a tractor trailer with flashing hazards. The court denied the motion and explained that the issue of the Plaintiff’s negligence should be submitted...
by KPMLAW | May 11, 2017 | KPMBlog, News, Profiles, Uncategorized
Written by Lauren Gibbons, Esq. Edited by Bill Pfund, Esq. The issue of priority of coverage arises on a daily basis for attorneys and claims examiners alike in the world of insurance defense, and are often a source of headache and confusion. In the recent case of Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Ins. Exch., the Supreme Court of Virginia shed some light on how to properly determine the priority of applicable insurance coverage. 2017 Va. LEXIS 52 (Va. Apr. 13, 2017). In Nationwide, the Supreme Court determined the priority of applicable insurance policies involved in an underlying civil suit arising out of a fatal car accident. Two companies, East Coast and Rodriguez Construction, entered into a subcontract for construction services. East Coast loaned a work truck to Rodriguez under this contract. One of Rodriguez’s employees was operating that vehicle in the course of his employment when he struck another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle died as a result of the accident and his Estate filed a wrongful death suit against the driver and East Coast. East Coast was eventually nonsuited from the matter, leaving only a potential judgment against Rodriguez’s employee. The issue before the Supreme Court was priority of coverage for the employee. At the time of the accident, East Coast was insured under two Erie policies – (1) Erie Auto Policy and (2) an Erie Umbrella Policy. Rodriguez, on the other hand, was insured by Nationwide and had the following policies – (1) Nationwide Auto Policy (2) Nationwide CGL Policy, and (3) Nationwide Umbrella Policy. The subcontract between East Coast and Rodriguez required...
