IN THE
Q 1 2024 Inaugur al Issue
NOW
GENERAL LIABILITY EDITION
IN THIS ISSUE: • Decoding the Proposed “Grieving Families Act” • Bad Faith and Offers of Judgment • Stacking of Inferences: An Underused Tool in the Defense Attorney’s Toolbox
EDITOR’S LETTER
WELCOME Dear Valued Clients and Partners: I am thrilled to introduce the inaugural issue of our quarterly “In the Know” newsletter from the General Liability Division at Kelley Kronenberg. This edition is brimming with insightful content, featuring four articles addressing pressing industry issues, a captivating spotlight on one of our esteemed team members, coverage of recent events, and a preview section detailing upcoming events. Our primary aim with “In the Know” is to keep you informed about the latest developments impacting our General Liability and Transportation Practice, providing articles that are meticulously crafted to provide nuanced insights and understanding on critical topics within our field. We also aim to keep you connected with our seasoned team of professionals who work strenuously each day to defend our clients and collaborate with their insurers. We urge you to immerse yourselves in the content and actively engage with us. Your feedback is invaluable as we strive to tailor our offerings to meet your needs and surpass your expectations. Thank you for entrusting Kelley Kronenberg with your legal matters. We consider it a privilege to serve you and remain unwavering in our commitment to delivering exceptional results. Warm regards,
David Henry Chair, General Liability and Transportation Division
TABLE OF
CONTENTS Introducing the Proposed “Grieving Families Act”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5 Bad Faith and Offers of Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Stacking of Inferences: An Underused Tool in the Defense Attorney’s Toolbox . . . . . . . . 8 - 10 Behind the Briefcase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Notable Case Wins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 13 Client Alert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 16 Awards and Accolades. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Meet the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 23 Kelley Kronenberg Out & About . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Future Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Firm Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 27
Introducing the Proposed “Grieving Families Act” By: Heather C. Ragone and Meir O. Edri In the ever-shifting landscape of New York legislation, a seismic proposal is on the horizon – the “Grieving Families Act.” While this article is a brief synopsis of the general risk posed by this legislation, if the Act is signed into law, we will be your guides to decoding the impact on your claims and business.
4 | IN THE
NOW
The proposed legislation, introduced as Senate Bill S74A on January 6, 2021, has stirred ripples in New York’s legal landscape, especially for businesses and insurance companies tasked with defending cases under this evolving law. Commonly known as the “Grieving Families Act,” its primary goal is to overhaul New York’s nearly two-centuryold wrongful death statute, enacted back in 1847. As defense attorneys defending tort cases, we recognize the potential impact of this legislation on our clients’ operations and financial stability. The proposed bill seeks to broaden the scope of recovery beyond the confines of pecuniary loss, allowing families of wrongful death victims to seek compensation for emotional anguish – a dimension of loss that’s inherently difficult to quantify.
In its current form, New York’s wrongful death statute relies heavily on statutory provisions of the New York Estates Powers and Trusts Law. These provisions attempt to quantify the unquantifiable – the intangible losses experienced by families left behind. However, the proposed amendments to the statute present challenges from a defense perspective. Extending the window for filing wrongful death actions, broadening the definition of beneficiaries, and retroactively applying the law to pending cases may pose significant hurdles for businesses and insurers navigating through legal proceedings.
As you navigate the ever-changing currents of New York law, we stand ready as your partners in the journey ahead. Should questions arise or insights be sought, remember that our expertise is at your disposal. We’re here to provide clarity, strategic guidance, and unwavering support as you navigate the nuances of the “Grieving Families Act” and beyond. Together, let’s forge a path forward with confidence and resilience. Reach out to us with any questions or concerns – your success is our priority.
The journey of this proposed legislation hasn’t been without roadblocks. Despite passing the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York on June 2, 2022, the bill faced successive vetoes from Governor Kathy Hochul. Concerns over unintended consequences, including potential rises in health insurance premiums and added costs to hospitals, underscore the complexities surrounding this issue. As defense attorneys, we understand the need to balance compassion for grieving families with the practical considerations of our clients. The “Grieving Families Act” presents a paradigm shift in how wrongful death claims are approached in New York, and it’s imperative that we remain vigilant in protecting the interests of insurance companies amidst evolving legal landscapes.
IN THE
NOW | 5
Bad Faith and Offers of Judgment By: Nita Smith Numerous articles and blogs have been authored about the litigation impacts of Florida’s HB 837, which took effect on March 24, 2023. The highlights include a reduced statute of limitations for negligence actions (except medical malpractice actions) from four years to two for any lawsuits filed after March 24, 2023; changing Florida’s comparative fault law such that any plaintiff who is found to be 51% or more at fault may not recover any damages; and more. I would like to focus on only two segments of the HB 837 changes: bad faith and offers of judgment. For decades, plaintiffs have used bad faith as a cudgel against insurance carriers, often before a bad faith claim has even ripened. Importantly, the revised civil remedy statute provides: “(5) In any bad faith action, whether such action is brought under this section or is based on the common-law remedy for bad faith: (a) Mere negligence alone is insufficient to constitute bad faith.”
6 | IN THE
NOW
[§624.155(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied).] Theoretically, this express statement by Florida’s Legislature will discourage unwarranted bad faith claims when a litigant is merely unhappy with an insurance carrier’s settlement offer. The judiciary’s analysis of this section and the precedent that is developed over time will tell whether bad faith litigation will eventually decline. Offers of judgment pursuant to 768.79 remain a viable tool in a litigant’s toolbox to encourage pre-trial resolution. An offer of judgment, often used in conjunction with a proposal for settlement under Rule 1.442 of Fla.R.Civ.P., creates a potential fee-shifting effect as follows: if a plaintiff serves an offer of judgment that is not accepted by the defendant and the plaintiff recovers a judgment 25% or more than the offer of judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to recover costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer of judgment. Conversely, if a defendant serves an offer of judgment rejected by a plaintiff, and the plaintiff recovers a judgment at least 25% less than the offer, the defendant shall be awarded reasonable costs, including investigative expenses and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer of judgment. The foregoing explanation is an oversimplification of offers of judgment, but if you need additional explanation, please ask your hired counsel to explain the ramifications of using this litigation tool.
I have successfully used offers of judgment/ proposals for settlement in my legal practice. The serious concern that a plaintiff may be liable for attorney’s fees and costs with either a defense verdict or something 25 percent lower than their demand can lead to a pretrial settlement. For example, a defendant serves an offer of judgment on January 1 for $20,000.00, which the plaintiff rejects. At trial, the plaintiff recovers a judgment of $17,000.00. At first glance, the plaintiff does not seem responsible for defense fees and costs. However, after collateral source payments are received, the amount obtained by the plaintiff is reduced to $10,000.00. Under this scenario, a plaintiff is responsible for the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred from January 1 (the date the offer was made). Why? The statute clearly defines “judgment obtained” as the amount of the net judgment entered, which contemplates a set-off for post-offer settlement amounts by which the verdict was reduced, such as medical services provided under a letter of protection.
HB 837 resulted in the addition of §624.1552, Fla. Stat., which extends the applicability of §768.79 to any civil action involving an insurance contract. There is current litigation and a judicial split regarding whether the majority of HB 837’s changes apply to causes of action filed after March 24, 2023, or if they are retroactive in nature. However, the statutory notes to §624.1552 clarify that the new section applies to any insurance contract issued or renewed after March 24, 2023, as follows: “Section 29, ch. 2023-15, provides that ‘[t]his act shall not be construed to impair any right under an insurance contract in effect on or before [March 24, 2023]. To the extent that this act affects a right under an insurance contract, this act applies to an insurance contract issued or renewed after [March 24, 2023].’” Thus, insurance carriers have a little bit more leeway in using offers of judgment to potentially resolve cases without protracted litigation.
IN THE
NOW | 7
Stacking of Inferences: An Underused Tool in the Defense Attorney’s Toolbox By: Catherine V. Arpen We defense attorneys have a plethora of tools in our toolbox to use as defenses against the overreaching plaintiff. One of the most underused in premises liability is the rule against the stacking of inferences.
As we know, in Florida, when a business invitee slips and falls on a foreign transitory substance, Fla. Stat. § 768.0755 requires plaintiff to prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition before liability may be found.[ii] Just because an accident occurred, there is no presumption or inference of negligence on the business.[iii] The plaintiff has the burden of proof and must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such conduct or causation is not enough, and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or
[i] Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211 So. 3d 275, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). See also, Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Roth, 355 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). [ii] N. Lauderdale Supermarket, Inc. v. Puentes, 332 So. 3d 526, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) [iii] Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So. 2d 1339, 1341 (Fla. 1978)
8 | IN THE
NOW
conjecture, it becomes the court’s duty to direct a verdict for the defendant. For this reason, it is paramount that the actual facts establish each element of the negligence claim. An element may not be established soley by an inference. The seminal case discussing this issue is Nielson v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731, 733 (Fla. 1960). It stated that, in a civil case, circumstantial evidence may establish a fact as effectively and conclusively as it may be proved by direct positive evidence. The limitation of the rule is that if a party to a civil action depends upon the inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence as proof of one fact, it cannot construct a further inference upon the initial inference to establish a further fact unless it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences.”[iv] In other words, a plaintiff must prove each element of a negligence claim with competent evidence, and only one inference can be made in each step.[v]
Additionally, the rule prohibiting impermissible inference stacking is applicable in a summary judgment context.[vi] The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated that “if a party could simply allege their beliefs as evidence of events that give rise to a cause of action to sufficiently overcome summary judgment, summary judgment would be meaningless.”[vii] Thus, unless there is only one possible theory on how an accident happened, Florida law clearly states that summary judgment is proper because the alternative (multiple reasonable theories) violates the inference-stacking rule. The Middle District of Florida also opined, “At the summary judgment stage, the Court “must review the evidence and all reasonable factual inferences arising from it in the light most favorable to the moving party.”[viii] “An inference is not reasonable if it is only a guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence but is pure conjecture and speculation.”[ix] Indeed, “[s]peculation does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary goal of summary judgment.”[x]
[iv] Id. at 733 (emphasis added). [v] Robert C. Weill, The Overlooked Arrow in the Defense’s Quiver: The Rule Against Impermissible Inference-Stacking, 26 Tr. Advoc. Q. 32 (Summer 2007); see also Hurst v. Astudillio, 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3rd 1994) (trial court could not infer that there was negligence on the part of the defendant in providing a defective or inadequate ladder and then upon that inference, to infer further that such negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s fall). [vi] Cohen v. Arvin, 878 So. 2d 403, 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) [vii] Id. [viii] Id. (emphasis added). [ix] Chambers v. Walt Disney World Co., 132 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1363 (M.D. Fla. 2001) [x] Id.
IN THE
NOW | 9
Listen to the testimony of the plaintiff during deposition. Inspect their responses to verified interrogatories. Do they state what caused them to slip and fall? Did they see it or feel it? If the response is “I don’t know,” this is the situation in which the stacking of inferences applies. The plaintiff may be inferring something was on the floor just because she slipped and fell, but that does not establish something on the floor. So, the first inference is that a substance was on the floor. This leads to the second inference that the substance caused her to fall. Then, an additional inference that the business had knowledge of or created this dangerous condition, and thus, was negligence. But when plaintiff fell, if she has no knowledge of what cause her to fall, perhaps she fell because she tripped on her own feet, or took a misstep, or her shoe heel slipped sideways. Thus, because there was no firsthand testimony that a substance was on
10 | IN THE
NOW
the floor, the subsequent inferences cannot be assumed based on the first inference, to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. plaintiff may not depend on any other inferences in establishing breach or causation. In conclusion, the rule against the stacking of inferences stands as a critical aspect of premises liability defense. It demands a meticulous examination of the evidence presented, ensuring that each element of negligence is substantiated with concrete facts rather than speculative assumptions. As defense attorneys, our commitment to upholding this principle is paramount in safeguarding our clients’ rights and interests. By scrutinizing plaintiff testimony and interrogatories, we can effectively challenge unsupported claims and uphold the integrity of the legal process. Through a diligent application of this rule, we can navigate the complexities of premises liability cases with precision and clarity, ensuring that justice is served equitably.
BEHIND THE
BRIEFCASE ATTORNEY SPOTLIGHT
Jessica A. Clark
Partner New York, NY
jclark@kklaw.com Click here for Bio
If you could have any superpower, what would it be and how would you use it? I would choose the power to fly because it would be amazing to be able to travel anywhere in the world without having to pay for airfares, go to the airport, plan the logistics of trips, even the simple act of commuting would be so much simpler. Also, you never know when you need to fly yourself out of a sticky situation! If you could switch careers for a day, what would you choose to do and why? I would definitely be a professional golfer on the women’s tour. I think it would be incredible to be so skilled at something you love, and feel what it’s like to perform under that kind of pressure. What’s something most people don’t know about you, but you wish they did? I’m an amateur baker, gardener, and painter, I live for my two sons, and although I live in and love NYC, I’m a Michigan girl at heart, and therefore bleed maize and blue! What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received, and who gave it to you? This is a tough one since I can credit my parents with so many pearls of wisdom over the years. I would say, “take no prisoners”, “always follow through when you commit to something” and “be true to yourself” are some of my favorites, and ones that I try to adhere to. If you could pick a celebrity side-kick for a day, who would it be? Taylor Swift. I am not a Swiftie by any stretch of the imagination, but I think she seems like a fun, down to earth person to hang out with for the day. Otherwise, maybe Elton John, because he’s fabulous!
IN THE
NOW | 11
NOTABLE
CASE WINS Kelley Kronenberg Settles Gig Economy Case For a Fraction of Plaintiff’s Demand Read More Lara Weems Rezapour
Wendy L. Gaskins
Partner / Business Unit Leader
Attorney
Kelley Kronenberg Achieves Remarkable Settlement by Using Strategic Social Media Discovery Read More David W. Gordon
Alexandra C. Mena
Partner / Business Unit Leader
Attorney
12 | IN THE
NOW
Kelley Kronenberg Awarded Summary Judgment in Slip and Fall Case Valued Over $1M Read More Aaron D. Neifeld
Carla Freire Torres
Partner / Business Unit Leader
Attorney
Kelley Kronenberg’s Calculated Strategy Results in Settlement for Fraction of the Demand Read More Catherine V. Arpen Partner
For additional successes in General Liability cases, please click here.
IN THE
NOW | 13
CLIENT
ALERT Slippery Slope: NY Court of Appeals Expands the Scope of Slipping Hazards By: Jessica Clark The New York Court of Appeals recently expanded the scope of protection afforded under Labor Law 241(6) by holding that a plastic covering could be considered a “foreign substance” under Industrial Code Section 23-1.7(d). The Court also held that the plastic covering was not integral to the work since the defendant created an “avoidable danger.” This is an unfavorable decision for defendants because it increases the likelihood of liability for owners, contractors, and their agents in cases arising from construction site accidents. In Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00847 (decided February 20, 2024; Decision), the plaintiff, a painter on a renovation project, was injured after slipping on an unsecured plastic covering on an 14 | IN THE
NOW
escalator in an area he was assigned to paint. The plaintiff testified that he complained to his foreman about the unsecured covering to no avail and that drop cloths were available on the premises. The general contractor’s superintendent testified that the plastic was the wrong type of covering for the escalator steps and that if he had seen it before the plaintiff’s fall, he would have directed it be replaced. The superintendent also testified that drop cloths were used at the site and were less slippery than the plastic used. After the fall, the superintendent directed that the plastic covering be removed, and it was removed right away. The Appellate Division, in a 3-2 split decision, granted the defendants’ motions and reversed the lower court, holding that the plastic covering was not a “foreign substance” under Industrial Code Section 23-1.7 (d) because it was “not similar in nature to the foreign substances listed in the regulation, i.e., ice, snow, water, or grease.” The majority also concluded that the plaintiff’s claim was barred because the plastic covering was integral to the work. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding a violation of Industrial Code Section 23-1.7(d), and granted the plaintiff’s summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.
Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes statutory liability upon property owners, contractors, and their agents for injury claims arising from construction, demolition, or excavation operations. A Labor Law § 241 (6) claim must be premised upon a violation of a provision of the New York State Industrial Code which imposes specific safety standards. As is relevant to the Bazdaric case, 12 NYCRR 231.7 (d), “General Hazards, slipping hazards,” provides: “Employers shall not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform, or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition. Ice, snow, water, grease and any
other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing.” In dicta, the Court of Appeals held that the covering was a foreign substance because it was not a component of the escalator and was not necessary for the escalator to function. The covering’s properties were also the type encompassed within 12 NYCRR 231.7 (d) because the items preceding “foreign substance” were also types of material that were slippery when in contact with an area where a person walks, and when present, would make it difficult to use the work area safely.
IN THE
NOW | 15
The Court of Appeals further reasoned that the “integral to work” doctrine recognizes that certain work assignments are, by their nature, dangerous but still permissible, and the particular commands of the Industrial Code may not apply if they would make it impossible to conduct the work. However, if preventive measures would not make it impossible to complete the work, this doctrine does not apply. Therefore, the Court concluded that standing on a stopped escalator while painting required the steps to be covered to prevent the paint from damaging the escalator and the area from becoming slippery. However, there were clearly other, safer options to cover the escalator. Thus, the integral to the work defense “applies only when the dangerous condition is inherent to the task at hand” but not where the defendant created an avoidable danger. KK TAKEAWAYS The Court is willing to take an expansive reading of the Industrial Code as it pertains to “foreign substances” and include any slippery substance or object, even if not akin to those items specifically listed in the provision, i.e., ice, snow, water, and grease. Owners, contractors, and their agents should be mindful of any objects being utilized on site that may be covering a surface that workers may have to traverse (including those placed by subcontractors) because if they are foreign to the location and result in a slippery surface, they may give rise to liability
16 | IN THE
NOW
under Labor Law 241(6). This is particularly so if there are safer, less slippery alternatives. Additionally, the “integral to the work” defense will not apply if a defendant creates an “avoidable” danger. Thus, defendants and employers cannot be incentivized to simply utilize “any means of accomplishing a task, even if it is the most dangerous.” This narrows a commonly utilized defense in Labor Law 241(6) cases. YOUR LEGAL PARTNERS: NAVIGATING NEW YORK LABOR LAW TOGETHER In the dynamic realm of New York labor law, staying abreast of recent judicial interpretations is paramount to effectively navigate the intricacies of insurance defense. The recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals, expanding the purview of slipping hazards, underscores the evolving nature of legal precedents in our field. For insurance adjusters and executives seeking clarity amidst these changes, I extend an invitation to connect with me, Jessica Clark, Esquire, and my esteemed colleague, David Henry, Esquire. With our collective expertise in insurance defense law and a nuanced grasp of New York labor statutes, we are committed to providing tailored guidance to address your unique challenges. Whether you’re grappling with current claims or preparing for potential liabilities, we stand ready to offer strategic counsel and steadfast advocacy. Your peace of mind begins with a simple call to our dedicated team.
AWARDS AND
ACCOLADES FIRM AWARDS Kelley Kronenberg has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors both firm-wide and for a number of our practices, including individual accolades. Below is a select list of recognition and awards:
2021 – 2023 Top Workplaces USA Energage
2020 – 2023 Top Workplaces Sun Sentinel
2019 – 2024 Best Law Firms U.S. News - Best Lawyers
2022 – 2023 Best Places To Work New Orleans CityBusiness
2020 – 2022 Compass Award Leadership Council on Legal Diversity
2021 – 2022 Top Places To Work Ragan Communications
2019, 2021 – 2023 Women In Law Scorecard The National Law Journal
2016 – 2023 Largest Law Firms Tampa Bay Business Journal
2017 – 2022 Biggest Law Firms in Florida Florida Trend
2012 – 2023 NLJ 500 The National Law Journal
2020 – 2022 Business of the Year South Florida Business Journal
2012 – 2023 Top Law Firms South Florida Business Journal
2017 – 2022 400 Largest Law Firms Law360
2011 – 2022 100 Largest Law Firms Daily Business Review
2016 – 2022 Largest Central Florida Law Firms Orlando Business Journal
2022 Best Midsize Law Firm To Work For Vault
2021 Diversity Scorecard The American Lawyer
2021 Diversity Team Award Profiles in Diversity Journal
IN THE
NOW | 17
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS David S. Henry Chair, General Liability and Transportation Division Email David S. Henry
David Henry serves as the Chair of our firm’s General Liability and Third-Party Insurance Defense Division, which includes our New York Labor Law, Trucking and Transportation, and Gig Economy Practices. He focuses his practice on high exposure and complex litigation, dividing his time between our Florida and New York offices to assist clients in both states. David specializes in working with national and international insurers, including the Lloyds of London Market, to defend corporations, municipalities, and individuals facing liability arising from various tort and commercial causes of actions. He has a strong track record of success, securing efficient outcomes as soon as possible, but also wins through voluntary dismissal, summary judgment, trial, and appeal. David has also developed a reputation as a skilled and deliberate negotiator, able to leverage nuanced and intricate coverage positions and defenses to benefit his clients through direct negotiation, and especially, at mediation. David manages a large and experienced team of attorneys across multiple offices nationwide. Under David’s leadership, the team focuses on the needs of our clients’ cases, identifying the specific caseby-case litigation requirements to bring about
18 | IN THE
NOW
an efficient resolution. The Division’s attorneys emphasize effective communication and client service, regularly updating clients and insurers about each case’s developments. David’s current practice centers on the most intricate and challenging matters, encompassing a range of complex cases involving New York Labor Law Section 240 cases, bad faith litigation, negligent security, dram shop, premises liability, commercial transportation, product liability, and more. David boasts a wealth of diverse litigation experience, having skillfully handled a broad spectrum of cases, ranging from defamation, Section 1983 claims, construction defect, toxic tort, medical malpractice, directors’ and officers’ liability, professional malpractice, class action lawsuits, coverage, and matters under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. David has also engaged in commercial litigation. David has been involved in cases with prominent media coverage and a strong community impact. He plays a crucial part in the firm’s Rapid Response Team, ensuring his availability for unforeseen situations, regardless of the time of day.
Elizabeth Hernandez Partner / Business Unit Leader Email Elizabeth Hernandez
Elizabeth Hernandez is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on general liability and third-party insurance defense. Elizabeth is a seasoned trial attorney with over 25 jury trials. Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, she worked as a Managing Partner of a prominent nationwide law firm representing clients on complex subrogation matters involving insurance claims. Successfully recovering millions of dollars
on behalf of her clients. Elizabeth obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University College of Law and a Bachelor’s in Legal Studies from the University of Central Florida. Elizabeth is a United States Air Force Veteran and proud Florida native who enjoys spending her time with her family outdoors either on the water or on the golf course.
Meir O. Edri Attorney Email Meir O. Edri
Meir Edri is an Attorney at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing his practice on trucking and transportation. Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Meir served as a Trial Attorney, managing extensive caseloads involving misdemeanors and felonies throughout all phases of litigation. His expertise also includes criminal defense representation.
Meir graduated from the City University of New York, Hunter College, with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. He then earned his Juris Doctor degree from Penn State Law. Meir is fluent in Hebrew.
IN THE
NOW | 19
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS Heather C. Ragone Partner / Business Unit Leader Email Heather Ragone
Heather Ragone is a Partner and Business Unit Leader in Kelley Kronenberg’s Trucking and Transportation Practice Group. Heather has amassed over 20 years of experience defending complex and high-profile transportation-related litigation in New York, New Jersey, and federal court, involving everything from limousines, school buses, tractor-trailers, and dump trucks to double-decker tour buses. Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Heather spent many years as the chief member of a New York/New Jersey Emergency Response Team. She now brings that experience and expertise to Kelley Kronenberg’s Rapid Response Task Force. Always prioritizing the best interests of her clients, Heather engages in extensive interactions with police, prosecutors, investigators, accident reconstructionist experts, media, personnel, and other emergency responders. Heather assumes the dual role of a forward-thinking client advocate and a vital intermediary between clients and various law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as investigatory agencies, such as the National Transportation Safety Board. This
20 | IN THE
NOW
role is especially crucial in the context of severe and high-profile commercial transportation accidents. Heather has presented lectures to commercial auto carriers regarding not only the value and strategy of rapid responses, but also on New York and New Jersey litigation in general. She is a member of the Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA). Recognized by the New York Metro Super Lawyers for eight consecutive years in the areas of Transportation and Maritime, Heather’s achievements are particularly notable. The Super Lawyers distinction is a prestigious honor, with only 5% of attorneys receiving this recognition, and an even more exclusive 2.5% being designated as Rising Stars, an honor bestowed on Heather for 2014-2015. Before pursuing her Juris Doctor degree at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Heather completed her Bachelor of Science in Biology at the City University of New York-College of Staten Island.
Jessica A. Clark Partner / Business Unit Leader Email Jessica A. Clark
Jessica Clark is a Partner and Business Unit Leader at Kelley Kronenberg, focusing her practice on general liability, including construction accidents, premises liability, automobile liability, and New York Labor Law. Prior to joining the firm, Jessica served as a Partner for a full-service litigation firm, representing construction contractors, building owners, condominium, and cooperative boards, developers, and insurance companies in construction litigation, premises liability, product liability, habitational, and insurance coverage actions. She has worked on the East 51st Street and East 91st Street crane collapse cases, high profile product liability litigation, and complex habitational claims. In addition, Jessica has argued appeals in the First and Second Appellate Divisions of New York and has obtained many successful outcomes for clients.
Jessica earned her Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Political Science from Bucknell University, graduating magna cum laude. During her time there, she was an active member of the university’s Mortar Board Senior Honor Society and was President of the Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society. She was also on the golf team. Jessica went on to pursue her Juris Doctor degree from The University of Michigan Law School. While there, she distinguished herself by participating in the Henry M. Campbell Moot Court Competition. Jessica was also an active member of the Women’s Law Students Association and Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity.
IN THE
NOW | 21
MEET THE
CONTRIBUTORS
Catherine V. Arpen Partner Email Catherine V. Arpen
Catherine Arpen is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg,
an active participant in Law Students Against
where she concentrates on matters related to
Violence, serving on the organization’s Executive
general liability and third-party insurance defense.
Board for the 2012-2013 academic year. She was a
Before joining Kelley Kronenberg, Catherine spent more than five years representing insurance carriers in defense of their personal injury protection (PIP),
Pupil in the E. Robert Williams Inn of Court during law school and was a Barrister in the FergusonWhite American Inn of Court for 2021-2022.
bodily injury, and general liability claims. During
Prior to law school, Catherine gained legal
this time, her practice also included corporate
experience as a Paralegal for multiple Florida Law
collections, family law, and labor and employment
Firms. She also served as a Visitation Monitor for
law. Her expansive experience followed a three-
the Family Nurturing Center of North Florida. While
and-a-half-year tenure as an Administrative Law
pursuing her law degree, she was a Senior Student
Judge during which time she presided over DEO and
Clinician in her law school’s Family Law Legal Clinic.
RA appeals.
From June 2012 to September 2018, Catherine
Catherine earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science with a minor in Philosophy from the University of North Florida. She went on to obtain her Juris Doctor degree from Florida Coastal School of Law, where her excellence was acknowledged as a recipient of Pro-Bono Honors and the Triumph Award. While pursuing her law degree, she was
22 | IN THE
NOW
served as a volunteer Juvenile Criminal Sentencing Judge in the Clay County Diversion Program. Most recently, on August 31, 2022, the Florida Bar published an article she wrote in its blog, The Professional, regarding anxiety, depression, and mental health in the legal profession.
Sunita N. Smith Partner Email Sunita N. Smith
Sunita “Nita” Smith is a Partner at Kelley Kronenberg, where she concentrates on matters related to all aspects of general liability cases, firstparty property insurance defense matters, and personal injury protection cases. Nita’s insurance experience includes handling general liability cases, insurance coverage cases, PIP claims for a variety of automobile insurers and one subrogation case. Before joining the firm, Nita worked at a national law firm, where she gained experience in first & third-party property litigation and insurance coverage cases, including the areas of construction, employment, and bodily injury cases. Nita also has experience in employment discrimination, medical malpractice defense, and appeals. For the last
several years, Nita performed contract work for various Florida law firms in a wide variety of practice areas and founded her own firm in 2015. Nita received her Bachelor of Arts in English from Florida State University. While attending FSU, Nita worked at a state agency and as a legislative intern. After FSU, Nita worked at a non-profit organization, interned at the Florida Governor’s press office, and worked in Olympic Village at the 1996 Olympics. She then earned her Juris Doctor degree from the University of the Pacific – McGeorge School of Law. While attending law school, Nita was certified by the California Bar to represent inmates at Board of Prison Terms hearings.
IN THE
NOW | 23
KELLEY KRONENBERG
OUT & ABOUT
GL Jacksonville Dinner Elizabeth Hernandez, DeAndreth Isaacs & Catherine Arpen
London Trip to Lloyds of London Marketplace David Henry & Alida Verdino
Sock Drive for Mission House Elizabeth Hernandez, Austin Miniard, Mikayla Melnik, Jasmine Hall, Emily Zatorski, Catherine Arpen, Scott McCloskey, Abdel Reyes & Daniel Montgomery 24 | IN THE
NOW
FUTURE
EVENTS
March 3rd-6th The Wholesale & Specialty Insurance Association (WSIA) Mid-Year Conference Attendees: David Henry and Alida Verdino
March 7th Keep Judge Jessica Marra, Broward County Circuit Court Fundraiser David Henry is co-hosting at Kelley Kronenberg Headquarters
March 12th -13th Insurance Association of Claims Professionals (IACP) European Conference Attendees: David Henry and Alida Verdino
May 1st-2nd Preferred Governmental Insurance Trust (PGIT) Member Welcome Reception & Education Day Attendees: David Henry, Howard Wander, Lara Weems Rezapour, Elizabeth Grindell, Elizabeth Hernandez, and David Gordon Kelley Kronenberg is a proud sponsor
May 13th – 15th Target Market Program Administrators Association (TMPAA) 2024 Mid-Year Meeting Attendees: David Henry, Heath Eskalyo, and Alida Verdino
June 5th Jacksonville Women Lawyers Association Judicial Reception Attendees: Catherine Arpen, Elizabeth Hernandez, and DeAndreth Isaacs Kelley Kronenberg is a proud sponsor
IN THE
NOW | 25
with over
495
Employees
more than
the convenience of
Attorneys
Locations
220
16
Founded in 1980, Kelley Kronenberg is an award winning, multi-practice national law firm with 495 employees, 220 attorneys, and 16 locations throughout Florida and the United States. We are privileged to represent large public and private companies, small businesses, and individuals nationwide. With more than 40 practice areas, and growth on the horizon, we offer a comprehensive catalog of legal services to protect your legal interests in business and at home. Our firm is progressive and technologically advanced, while remaining true to our customer service heritage: integrity, ingenuity, and sincerity. Ever mindful of our history, but intensely committed to our future, we offer our clients a small firm feel with large firm resources.
OUR
LOCATIONS FORT LAUDERDALE
NEW YORK CITY
MIAMI
WEST PALM BEACH
ORLANDO
CHICAGO
NEW ORLEANS
INDIANAPOLIS
TAMPA
JACKSONVILLE
TALLAHASSEE
NAPLES
DAYTONA
MERRILLVILLE
10360 W. State Road 84 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 370-9970
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 704 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 648-9450
1511 North Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Phone: (813) 223-1697
128 Orange Avenue, Unit 306 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Phone: (754) 888-5437
250 Park Avenue,7th Floor, Suite 7002 New York, NY 10177 Phone: (845) 306-7867
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1150 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 216-8828
10245 Centurion Parkway N, Suite 100 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone: (904) 549-7700
220 Alhambra Circle, Suite 410 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 503-0850
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2400 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: (504) 208-9055
6267 Old Water Oak Road, Suite 202 Tallahassee, FL 32312 Phone: (850) 577-1301
1475 Centrepark Blvd., Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 684-5956
10475 Crosspoint Blvd., Suite 218 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Phone: (317) 731-6243
1570 Shadowlawn Drive Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 990-6490
233 E. 84th Drive, Suite 200 Merrillville, IN 46410 Phone: (317) 731-6243
BY APPOINTMENT ONLY SHORT HILLS
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway First Floor West Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone: (908) 403-8174
ATLANTA
1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 990-4972
IN THE
NOW | 27
WWW.KKLAW.COM | 800.484.4381