Powell and Roman

Firm News

MAY 17, 2010

FIRM WINS SUMMARY JUDGMENT, COURT DISMISSES LAWSUIT AGAINST CAPE MAY PROPERTY OWNER

In Munoz v. Landon, the plaintiff, Delores Munoz, tripped on a public walkway adjacent to property owned by our client, Richard Landon. Ms. Munoz injured her right shoulder due to the fall, underwent 3 surgical procedures, and claimed medical bills in excess of $70,000.00. Ms. Munoz argued that Mr. Landon was a commercial property owner and that New Jersey sidewalk liability law required him to maintain the walkway for the safety of pedestrians. We successfully argued that Mr. Landon was not responsible for the walkway because it was part of a “City mall area” that was solely owned, maintained, and controlled by the City of Cape May. Ms. Munoz’s attorney filed an emergent appeal of the Order granting summary judgment, which was denied after we filed our brief in opposition. The City was also sued, and the case is now going to trial solely against the City.

APRIL 25, 2010

POWELL & ROMÁN COMPLETE LONDON MARATHON

Joseph M. Powell and Jose D. Roman ran the London Marathon on April 25, 2010. This was Mr. Powell’s third marathon, and he completed the 26.2 mile race in 4 hours, 7 minutes, 26 seconds. Mr. Román, who was running his first marathon, completed the race in 4 hours, 27 minutes, 48 seconds. Each were sponsored by the British Lung Foundation, and the firm raised £3200 for the charity. The BLF is a charity dedicated to promoting lung health and the treatment of all lung diseases.

APRIL 12, 2010

JOSE D. ROMÁN BECOMES MEMBER OF DC BAR

Jose D. Román became a member of the District of Columbia Bar on April 12, 2010. Mr. Román also has bar memberships with the State of New Jersey, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

MARCH 1, 2010

WILLIAM R. KUGELMAN JOINS FIRM

William R. Kugelman has joined Powell & Roman, LLC. He is a Partner of the firm and will lead the firm’s Business Law Division. Mr. Kugelman handles a diverse practice that includes transactional law and commercial litigation. He has over 20 years of experience and is a seasoned trial attorney. He brings a base of corporate clients and his expertise will compliment Powell & Roman’s existing defense and coverage practice.

MARCH 1, 2010

JOSE D. ROMAN NAMED A RISING STAR THIRD YEAR IN A ROW

Jose D. Roman, Esq. has been named a Rising Star in New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine and New Jersey Monthly Magazine for the third year in a row.* He was previously selected as a Rising Star in 2008 and 2009. No more than 2.5 percent of the attorneys in New Jersey are named to the Rising Star list. Rising Stars are selected following a state-wide survey of attorneys and a review of each nominee’s professional achievements.

* No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

MARCH 9, 2009

COURT DECLINES TO ALLOW SUBROGATING CARRIER TO ASSERT BROKER MALPRACTICE CLAIMS WITHOUT AN ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS

Joseph M. Powell and Jose D. Roman successfully defended a retail insurance broker in a malpractice action brought by Hanover Insurance Company (Hanover) in subrogation. Ms. Jill Sorensen was injured in an automobile accident caused by Mr. Yu Guan, who was driving a vehicle owned by his employer, S.H. Restaurant Equipment, Inc. (S.H.). Prior to the accident, S.H. procured insurance on its vehicle through the Mulligan Insurance Agency (Mulligan) with National Continental/Progressive Insurance Company (National). National cancelled the policy prior to the accident. Ms. Sorensen had an automobile policy at the time of the accident with Hanover. Hanover paid Ms. Sorensen benefits totaling $193,711.23. Hanover then asserted an insurance broker malpractice claim directly against Mulligan, arguing that Mulligan was negligent in communicating the cancellation to its client, S.H.
The case was dismissed based on the argument that Hanover did not have standing to make a direct claim against Mulligan without an assignment of rights from S.H. The Appellate Court agreed and affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that Mulligan owed no duty to Hanover, and that Hanover was not a third-party beneficiary of the relationship between Mulligan and S.H. The Court stressed that there was no public-policy reason to allow an insurance carrier in subrogation to assert an action under a third-party beneficiary theory, particularly where the carrier collected a premium for uninsured motorist coverage.
Jose D. Roman wrote the brief and Joseph M. Powell argued before the Appellate Division.

AUGUST 14, 2008

FAVORABLE VERDICT ON RE-TRIAL OF SUBROGATION CLAIM

Thomas J. Mooney Esq. tried and won a verdict in Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London a/s/o T & P Trucking Inc. v. Sisko in Middlesex County Superior Court. Suit was instituted in subrogation on behalf of an insured trucking company which had suffered a $62,942.09 property damage and cargo loss during a multi-vehicle highway accident. The matter was originally tried before a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. This office filed a motion seeking to set aside the jury’s verdict. We argued that the jury erred in its “proximate cause” findings and that the jury was improperly biased based upon questions asked during deliberations. The application was successful and the Court ordered a new trial on the issue of liability. The issue of damages was decided in our favor by the trial judge. On re-trial we were successful in convincing the jury of our position on liability and a favorable verdict was rendered.

APRIL 8, 2008

APPELLATE DIVISION AFFIRMS NO CAUSE OF ACTION--DECLINES TO EXTEND MODE OF OPERATION RULE TO HOTEL OWNERS.

Joseph M. Powell, Esq. tried and won Leonardo v. Comfort Inn Victorian, L-2095-04 in Atlantic County. The plaintiff, Frances Leonardo, claimed that she fell after stepping on a decorative rock that migrated from a rock bed to an adjacent sidewalk. The plaintiff appealed arguing that the "Mode of Operation Rule" should have been charged to the jury. In most cases the plaintiff must show that the defendant had notice of an unsafe condition. The mode of operation rule removes the notice requirement when a substantial risk of injury is inherent in a business operator's method of doing business. This rule has typically been applied in cases where the plaintiff slips and falls on produce on the floor of a supermarket. In Leonardo the Appellate Division held that the mode of operation rule only applies to self-service stores and retailers and refused to extend the doctrine to hotel owners. The Appellate Division further rejected plaintiff's arguments regarding "spoliation of evidence" with respect to the Comfort Inn's loss of original photos; the judge's alleged failure to properly tailor model jury instructions to the facts of the case; and that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Anthony J. Corino, Esq. wrote the appellate brief, and Jose D. Roman, Esq. handled pre-trial discovery. Click here for a full copy of the Appellate Division's opinion.

New Jersey / New York

Firm News

Firm News