Guest.

Your House Counsel and our Member Firms in the Mid-Atlantic Region are pleased to provide you with this regional edition of our Insurance and Corporate Liability Defenses Reporter. This reporter is intended to be informative as to topics of interest and is not intended to be legal advice. Readers should feel free to contact the firms included in this edition. In some jurisdictions, this may be considered Attorney Advertising.

We welcome your feedback and hope you enjoy this edition. Please be sure to sign up for our regional editions below.

Howard S. Shafer, President
Your House Counsel

Edward C. Bacon
Bacon, Thornton & Palmer, L.L.P.
YHC Mid-Atlantic Regional Chair
Delaware: Duty of Care in Products Liability Matters

By: Tybout, Redfearn & Pell

The Delaware Superior Court recently analyzed the legal duty of care for a building manufacturer after a person was injured by a concession stand window that was constructed without a latching mechanism. In Chambers v. Canal Athletic Ass'n Inc., 2022 WL 103067, at *5 (Del. Super. Jan. 11, 2022), the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer in holding that Plaintiff failed to show a breach of the standard of care where there was no evidence the product was defective in any way, and would not extent such legal duty to include components the manufacturer did not design, produce or install. Click here to read the full article.
 
About the Firm
Tybout, Redfearn & Pell has experience in all areas of tort litigation, medical malpractice, products liability, workers compensation, commercial and construction litigation, municipal liability, civil rights, litigation involving insurers, alternative dispute resolution, Delaware law, bankruptcy, labor law and professional licensing. Our offices are conveniently located in Wilmington, Delaware.
Delaware: Delaware’s UM/UIM Statute and Reformation Actions

By: Danielle K. Yearick & Robert M. Greenberg

In a recent decision by the Delaware Superior Court, the Court provides clarification of Delaware’s statute obligating an insurance carrier to provide and to offer uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, distinguishing those obligations under an existing policy where UM/UIM had previously been rejected. In Heasley v. Allstate, 2022 WL 951259 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2022), the insured was involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle and sought to reform his policy to add UM/UIM coverage equal to his bodily injury liability limits, alleging that Allstate violated 18 Del. C. §3902 by failing to offer him additional UM/UIM coverage when he made a material change to his policy by adding a new vehicle to it. Under §3902, Delaware law mandates minimum UM/UIM coverage limits, unless waived in writing by the insured/applicant. Where there is a “material change” to the policy, there must be a new “meaningful offer” of additional UM/UIM limits. Click here to read the full article.


About the Authors
Danielle K. Yearick is a Director at Tybout, Redfearn & Pell. She has served as the firm’s managing partner, Secretary, and Vice President. She is an experienced trial attorney in civil defense litigation, including personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, premises liability, products liability, construction accidents and contractor claims, insurance and coverage disputes, and workers’ compensation. She is also acting legal counsel for the Delaware Insurance Guaranty Association.

Robert M. Greenberg is a Director with the firm, focusing his practice in the area of civil defense litigation, including personal injury, products liability, premises liability, construction litigation, workers’ compensation, and insurance coverage disputes.
Prior to joining TR&P in 2004, Mr. Greenberg served as judicial law clerk for The Honorable Susan C. Del Pesco in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware.
Tennessee: No duty of care for property owners for “Minor Aberrations” on walking surfaces per recent decision of Tennessee Court of Appeals.
 
By Timothy D. Crawley & Broderick Young

In a recent decision that is sure to be cited by property owners in future trip and fall cases, the Court of Appeals affirmed a defendants’ summary judgment, holding that a divot on a brick step was a “minor aberration” and, as a result, the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care. Tino v. Walker, No. M2021-01230-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2794096 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 18, 2022). 
In Tino, Plaintiff was shopping in Nashville at a shopping area located on the Defendant’s premises. Plaintiff exited down a set of brick steps when she caught the heel of her shoe in a ‘divot’ in a brick on the second-to-last step, causing her to fall and suffer injuries. Plaintiff filed a premises liability suit against the premise’s owner. Click here to read the full article.


About the Authors
Timothy D. Crawley is a partner of Anderson Crawley & Burke, pllc. He is a faculty member for a variety of seminars dealing with issues in his areas of specialty, most recently presenting on “The Drones: They Are Coming!” at the 72nd Annual Workers’ Compensation Educational Conference (Orlando, Florida). He is presently a member of the American Bar Association; Mississippi Bar Association; Madison County Bar Association; Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit; Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association; Mississippi Claims Association; American Business & Insurance Attorneys.


Broderick Young is a partner of Arnett, Draper & Hagood and has been in practice since 1998. He graduated from the University of Tennessee in 1994 and graduated from Catholic University of America in 1998. His career has been devoted exclusively to civil litigation, with an emphasis on tort and healthcare liability defense, employment, and business litigation. He has litigated matters in courts throughout the nine-county region surrounding Knoxville, Tennessee, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington, & the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida. 
Virginia: INJURY BY ACCIDENT UPDATE – CUMULATIVE TRAUMA REMAINS
NON-COMPENSABLE IN VIRGINIA.


Virginia is regarded as the only remaining state that does not offer broad coverage under its Workers’ Compensation Act for injuries that arise gradually. The past several months have seen that status challenged.
The General Assembly of Virginia has undergone two changes of political control in recent years. In 2019, control of both chambers (the House of Delegates and the Senate) changed from Republican to Democrat. In 2021, control of the House of Delegates reverted back to Republican control. These political changes appear to have been significant. The first year of Democratic control of both chambers saw HB 617 passed. HB 617 directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to engage an independent and reputable national search organization to examine the implications of covering workers injuries caused by repetitive motion under the Act. Click here to read the full article.


About the Author
Brian J. McNamara is Of Counsel with Ford Richardson, PC, in our Roanoke office, where his practice focuses on the defense of workers’ compensation claims, and general liability claims. Brian also handles matters related to insurance coverage, first party claims and EUOs. Prior to joining Ford Richardson, Brian was in solo general practice for seven years, focusing on personal injury, workers’ compensation, business law and litigation, employment law and criminal defense. He has been practicing law for 18 years. His career began in Virginia, where he practiced from 2000-2007, and 2010 to the present.
An Interview with Danielle K. Yearick
Click here to get to know Danielle K. Yearick, a director at Tybout, Redfearn & Pell. If you have any questions or want to get to know Danielle better, she can be reached directly at [email protected]
Get to know the rest of our Mid-Atlantic Firms
Bacon, Thornton & Palmer, L.L.P. - MARYLAND
Don't Forget to Sign Up for
The Upcoming Webinar
Cyber Claims and Acts of War
Your House Counsel® Client Testimonials
“We have had nothing but good results with the firms within this network. More importantly there are those cases outside our region which we are unfamiliar with the local panel counsel and Your House Counsel® has given us that peace of mind that we are getting a highly qualified attorney/firm that understands our needs.” Sr. Litigation Manager
 
“We’ve turned to Your House Counsel® a number of times for defense counsel outside of our normal coverage area. Each time they responded quickly. The attorneys they have provided were very responsive and have done a great job for us.” Casualty Claims Supervisor
 
“Prior to meeting you we’d look through the Insurance Bar or A.M. Best list of approved attorneys and pick a firm that we thought would fit our needs. Unfortunately on more than one occasion that didn’t turn out so well either because of the defense performed on behalf of our insureds or because of the firm’s hourly fee schedule. However after meeting you and your other partner firms we discovered that not only were your rates fair but the actual defense of our claims were handled in a professional manner and that no unnecessary discovery was pursued.” Senior Vice-President, Claims.
About Your House Counsel®
 
Your House Counsel® is The National Consortium of Highly Regarded Insurance and Corporate Liability Defense Law Firms which meet stringent criteria for membership. Your House Counsel® works to everyone's advantage - companies seeking the services of insurance and corporate liability defense law firms and the Member Firms throughout the country. Your House Counsel® makes searching for a firm much easier and more successful. Our members know and understand your business and your expectations. Our members know their local markets, so you'll be represented by a neighbor, not a stranger. Find out more at YourHouseCounsel.com.