We bring you the best possible solutions for your company.
Industries
We enjoy working with a wide variety of service businesses.
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet ligula.
Trusted by the world’s fastest growing companies:
Exceptional Accountancy Resources.
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit amet aliquam vel, ullamcorper sit amet ligula.
Savings Excel
Curabitur ac leo nunc estibul et mauris vel ante finibus.
Tax Calculator
Curabitur ac leo nunc estibul et mauris vel ante finibus.
Checkbook Balancer
Curabitur ac leo nunc estibul et mauris vel ante finibus.
VAT Calculator
Curabitur ac leo nunc estibul et mauris vel ante finibus.
Avada has been a lifesaver for my growing business.
Morbi bibendum eu velit mattis aliquam. Nulla ac ullamcorper dui, in dictum nibh. Aliquam ac dictum nunc, eget auctor est.
Richard Simms
Founder – Hemisferio
Avada was the missing piece of the puzzle.
Morbi bibendum eu velit mattis aliquam. Nulla ac ullamcorper dui, in dictum nibh. Aliquam ac dictum nunc, eget auctor est.
Kate Schadler
Founder – Hemisferio
Great benefits from Avada.
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec velit neque, auctor sit.
Other Accountancy Agencies
Can you argue ?They?re faking it!? NJ Supreme Court says, ?It depends.? In March, the New Jersey Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Defendant?s medical expert could use specific terms such as ?symptom magnification? during their trial testimony. The case originated when the Plaintiff, who was shopping at Wal-Mart at the time, was struck by a falling clothing display rack. As a result, the Plaintiff brought forth a negligence suit against Wal-Mart.
In March, the New Jersey Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Defendant?s medical expert could use specific terms such as ?symptom magnification? during their trial testimony. The case originated when the Plaintiff, who was shopping at Wal-Mart at the time, was struck by a falling clothing display rack. As a result, the Plaintiff brought forth a negligence suit against Wal-Mart.
At the time of the incident, Plaintiff immediately experienced neck and back pain. After going to the hospital and then subsequently being treated by a specialist, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome (CPRS). Before the diagnosis, but after the Wal-Mart incident, Plaintiff was also involved in an automobile accident.
At
trial, the Defendant?s medical expert used terms like ?somatization? (converting
psychological issues to bodily symptoms) and ?symptom magnification? to
describe the Plaintiff?s injuries. These terms were used to minimize the
injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and ultimately cast doubt as to the extent
of the Plaintiff?s actual injuries. The jury unanimously determined that
Plaintiff failed to prove that Wal-Mart was negligent.
On
appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case on the basis that
the Defendant?s expert testimony and medical opinion were not allowed under
NJRE 403 (which prohibits (a) undue prejudice,
confusion of issues, or misleading the jury or (b) undue delay, waste of time,
or needless presentation of cumulative evidence).
The Supreme Court granted Wal-Mart?s petition for certification on this matter to decide whether or not the Appellate Division erred in disallowing the use of words like ?somatization? or ?symptom magnification.? Upon reasoning that medical expert testimony varies from case to case, consistent with NJRE 403, the Court ultimately found that ?the admissibility of medical expert testimony utilizing terms such as “somatization” and “symptom magnification” must be determined by trial courts on a case-by-case basis.? Accordingly, the Court reinstated the jury?s verdict of no cause of action.
If you are in need of an attorney please contact Powell & Roman by calling 732-679-3777 or by visiting our website here: https://lawppl.com/
On February 19, 2016 a split New Jersey Appellate panel in the case of Bardis v. Stinson & Cumberland Insurance Group, A-3454-12T3, reversed a Superior Court motion Judge finding that a jury should determine whether the basement wall of a home collapsed as a result of “hidden decay.” Cumberland Insurance Group denied coverage to Alexander and Monica Bardis who submitted a claim following the collapse of their basement wall. The basement had been added to the home approximately 20 years prior to its collapse. A structural engineer for Cumberland determined that when the basement was constructed block walls were used and there were no required underpinnings. Prior to its collapse a significant rain storm and melting snow in the region created hydrostatic pressure on the wall resulting in its demise. Plaintiff’s expert found that when the basement was constructed the concrete foundational wall was “sistered” within the basement alongside the original shallow bearing wall, and that construction resulted in lateral bending failure to due to excessive horizontal loads. The applicable coverage provision in Cumberland’s policy reviewed by the court provides:
Coverage is extended to cover the collapse of a building or any structural part of a building that ensues only as a consequence of the following:
*?????????????????????????????????? *?????????????????????????????????? *
- Hidden decay, unless such decay is known to an insured prior to the collapse.
*?????????????????????????????????? *?????????????????????????????????? *
- Use of defective material or methods of construction if the collapse occurs during the construction or repair.
The motion judge found that because the expert evidence established that the wall did not collapse during construction, even though improper construction methods were used years earlier, the loss was excluded from coverage, consequently no genuine issue of material fact existed and a jury determination on the issue was unnecessary. The NJ Appellate Division disagreed finding that under the ordinary definition of “decay” as found in Merriam-Webter’s Dictionary, that at least one common definition for decay includes a gradual decline in strength. The court went on to find that a jury could have reasonably determined, based on the 20 year delay between the time of construction and the collapse, that the wall underwent such a gradual decline in strength over time, thus meeting the definition of hidden decay. Thus, even though one cause of this collapse may have been the use of defective material or methods of construction, the Appellate Division found that the plaintiff had the right for a fact finder to determine whether the wall’s gradual decline in strength or “hidden decay” was also a causative factor in its collapse. Presiding Appellate Judge Sapp-Peterson dissented, finding that the plain meaning of “decay” is not the same as the plain meaning of “defect”, and would have affirmed the motion judge. Based on this split, Cumberland, as of right, may seek review by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
If you would like a copy of this entire opinion, please email your request to?attorney@lawppl.com<mailto:attorney@lawppl.com>