Menz Bonner & Komar LLP Persuades the New Jersey Appellate Division Court to Affirm Trial Court Order That New Jersey Uninsured Motorist Law Was Not Retroactive

Appellate Division Decision

On July 31, 2009, a panel of New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Superior Court that granted Menz Bonner & Komar LLP’s motion on behalf of Hartford Insurance Group. The trial court had held that an amendment to New Jersey’s Uninsured Motorist Law was not retroactive. The plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident, had sued to recover under a policy issued by Hartford that provided coverage where a driver is uninsured or underinsured. Hartford’s $1 million policy included what is known as a "step down" clause that limited the amount recoverable to the highest amount available under any policy that the injured person maintained individually. After the suit was filed, New Jersey amended its insurance laws to preclude the use of a “step down” clause such as the one that appeared in the Hartford policy. Menz Bonner & Komar LLP moved to dismiss the case in the Superior Court on the basis that the law’s amendment was not retroactive as to the Hartford policy. After the trial court ruled that the law was not retroactive, the plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Division agreed with the trial court that the law should not apply retroactively and dismissed the case.

Menz Bonner & Komar Represents Whistleblower in Half-Billion-Dollar-Plus Settlement Between United States and New York State and New York City. America's Largest Government Medicaid False Claims Case Began When Whistleblower Alleged Improper Speech Therapy Billing By Upstate New York County.

MBK Press Release

Department of Justice Press Release

Amended Complaint

On July 21, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that New York State and City had agreed to repay the federal government nearly $540 million to settle whistleblower-sparked Medicaid false claims allegations. This announcement ended a long struggle by a lone whistleblower, who was represented by Menz Bonner & Komar. Many years earlier, the client had attempted to correct speech therapy billing problems in an upstate New York county and across the state, but when the improper billing was not corrected, the whistleblower sued on behalf of the federal government under the qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act. As a result, New York State and City agreed to pay the largest federal recovery by the Justice Department for the Medicaid Program. "The information and cooperation that my client provided led directly to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services audits that ultimately confirmed the statewide billing problems that are the subject of this historic settlement," said David A. Koenigsberg, a lawyer for Ms. Cirrincione. "The value of whistleblower law in repatriating federal dollars back to United States taxpayers should be crystal clear." -- New York Times, July 21, 2009. The entire New York Times story may be found here.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Grants Menz Bonner & Komar LLP's Motion to Dismiss Appeal by Citibank, N.A.

Court Decision

On June 18, 2009, a panel of the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals granted the motion filed by Menz Bonner & Komar LLP on behalf of its client Aurelius Capital Partners LP to dismiss the appeal of Citibank, N.A. from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York compelling Citibank to produce documents in a case brought by Aurelius Capital Partners LP against the Republic of Argentina. The Second Circuit upheld the arguments advanced by Menz Bonner & Komar LLP that there was no subject matter jurisdiction for the appeal because a final order had not been entered by the District Court. Further, the court declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction because the issues raised by Citibank, N.A. were not related to the issues raised in a prior appeal by the firm’s client that was pending at the time Citibank filed its appeal.

New Jersey State Court Grants Menz Bonner & Komar's Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Insurance Declaratory Judgment Action Involving Underlying Asbestos Personal Injury Claims

Court Decision

On March 20, 2009, the New Jersey Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Menz Bonner & Komar LLP on behalf of Defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company in an insurance declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for underlying asbestos personal injury claims brought against a plumbing supply distributor. The plaintiff, Sussex County Plumbing, alleged that it qualified as an insured under an Owners, Landlords and Tenants liability policy issued to the spouses of former principals of the plumbing supply company, claiming that the spouses had a legal interest in the family plumbing business and that the location of business operation was one of the scheduled premises. The court rejected Sussex's arguments and agreed with Menz Bonner & Komar's position that the Hartford policy was unambiguous and Sussex did not qualify as a "named insured" or "insured" thereunder.

NASD Arbitration Panel Grants Menz Bonner & Komar's Motion to Dismiss Claim of Breach of Securities Trading Account Agreement at Close of Claimant's Case

Court Decision

On November 2, 2006, a NASD Arbitration Panel sitting in Boca Raton, Florida, at the close of the claimant's case in a securities arbitration proceeding, granted the Motion to Dismiss made by Menz Bonner & Komar LLP on behalf of ABN AMRO Incorporated. The Claimant, Atlantic Custodians, S.A., had asserted that ABN AMRO had breached a contract and/or negligently settled a stock transfer transaction on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The Motion to Dismiss was made after the claimant had presented its case, consisting of documents and live witnesses, who were vigorously cross-examined by Patrick Bonner and David Koenigsberg. Menz Bonner & Komar argued that Atlantic Custodians had no standing to bring the claim; that a purported assignment of claims was not valid; the contract conferred no rights on claimant nor was claimant a third-party beneficiary of the contract; and that ABN AMRO owed no duty to the claimant. Following oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss, the panel unanimously granted the motion and dismissed the claim.

Federal Court Grants Menz Bonner & Komar's Motion To Dismiss Its Client From A Major Insurance Declaratory Judgment Action Alleging Breach Of Contract And Bad Faith Denial Of Coverage

Court Decision

On November 1, 2005, Judge Eduardo Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum and Order granting Menz Bonner & Komar's motion to dismiss its client, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, from a major insurance declaratory judgment action brought by Henkel Corporation against Hartford and another insurer. The plaintiff's complaint alleged that Hartford breached its duty to defend and indemnify its insured and acted in bad faith by failing to provide coverage for numerous asbestos personal injury suits filed around the country. The complaint sought monetary and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and declaratory relief requiring Hartford to honor its purported present and future coverage obligations to Henkel. In its decision, the Federal District Court agreed with Hartford that it had no duty to defend underlying claims brought against non-insured entities. The court rejected Henkel's efforts to improperly expand Hartford's contractual obligations based on the assertion that extrinsic evidence would demonstrate that underlying plaintiffs had erroneously sued the wrong company. In particular, the Court credited Menz Bonner & Komar's "refreshingly simple" argument concerning fundamental issues of contract interpretation and agreed with Attorney Komar's statement that Henkel's argument concerning the "four corners rule" was really a "red-herring" that could not alter the scope of Hartford's obligation to defend only those lawsuits brought against persons or entities actually insured under its policies.

Menz Bonner & Komar Wins Defense Verdict At Trial In A New York State Labor Law Section 740 Whistleblower Action

On September 22, 2005, Judge Linda S. Jamieson of the New York Supreme Court in Westchester County issued a defense verdict in favor of the Firm's client, a Westchester-based manufacturing company, in an action alleging wrongful termination under section 740 of the New York State Labor Law, known as the "Whistleblower Statute." In the action, the plaintiff, who had worked for the company for over thirty years, claimed that he had been terminated for allegedly threatening to report purported health and safety violations to his superiors prior to his termination. During a two-week bench trial, at which over twenty witnesses testified, trial lawyers Patrick Bonner and David Koenigsberg persuaded the Court that the plaintiff's termination was lawful and unrelated to any purported exercise of rights under the Labor Law. In rendering its verdict, the Court found that there was no causal connection between the plaintiff's alleged threat to blow the whistle and the company's termination of his employment for a separate and legitimate purpose.

Menz Bonner & Komar LLP Wins Dismissal Of Action Brought To Compel Arbitration Of Complex Reinsurance Dispute In Federal Court

Court Decision

In an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the litigators at Menz Bonner & Komar successfully won the dismissal of a proceeding brought to compel arbitration of a complex reinsurance dispute. The action involved a dispute that originally had been brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Manhattan over monies allegedly owed pursuant to an automobile warranty program. The Firm successfully removed the matter to federal court and then filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the dispute at issue was not within the scope of the applicable arbitration provision. The Firm also moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds on behalf of certain of their clients. On April 10, 2004, the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Firm, which resulted in a complete victory for the Firm's clients.

Menz Bonner & Komar LLP Wins Appeal In Appellate Division Second Department That Affirms Dismissal of Claims In Alleged Wrongful Termination Action Filed Under The New York Labor Law

Court Decision

The appellate litigators at Menz Bonner & Komar were victorious in representing their client, a New York-based manufacturing company, in defeating an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department of the New York State Supreme Court. The trial court had dismissed numerous claims against the Firm's clients, including battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress and alleged insurance fraud. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of all the claims, having been persuaded by the Firm's attorneys that the lower court had properly granted their motion to dismiss an amended complaint after a previous motion to dismiss the complaint had been denied.

Menz Bonner & Komar LLP's Extraordinary Pro Bono Effort Secures Multi-Million Dollar Award For 9/11 Widow Of A New York City Firefighter Before The U.S. Federal Victim's Compensation Fund

Shortly after the founding of the Firm, Menz Bonner & Komar LLP took on the representation of the widow and minor children of a courageous New York City firefighter who died saving lives on September 11, 2001. The lawyers at the Firm worked diligently to come up with creative arguments that would secure the highest possible award on behalf of their clients from the U.S. Federal Victim's Compensation Fund, which was established by Congress after September 11 to aid the victims of the 9/11 tragedy. The Firm filed a comprehensive application with the Fund in support of their arguments and, after several meetings with Special Master Kenneth Feinberg, received a presumed award amount that was not satisfactory to the Firm. The lawyers at Menz Bonner & Komar then filed an appeal of that determination and as a result were able to secure an award on behalf of their clients far in excess of the original presumed award amount issued by the Fund.