Other Cases

Appeal of $90,000 Workers' Comp Judgement

A little known provision of the workers compensation act imposes personal liability upon corporate officers actively engaged in the corporate business. A young man worked for a local hardware retailer where he sustained the loss of an eye due to an unfortunate accident. The hardware retailer had failed to carry workers compensation insurance and it, and several active principals had filed for bankruptcy. The injured employee sued the secretary, the divorced wife of the president of the now bankrupt corporation. The workers compensation court assessed a $90,000 judgment against the wife, a mother of two and who taught school full-time. We were retained to represent the wife on appeal. In a reported decision, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court ruled that the wife was not actively engaged in her husband's business and ordered the judgment discharged. The Court went on to affirm the judgment against others, who truly were responsible for the loss.

Insurance Carrier Required to Cover $300,000

A local law firm sustained a $300,000 loss when their bookkeeper converted client funds from the firm's trust account. After seeing to the repayment of the injured party, the local firm retained us to seek restitution from their malpractice carrier. The insurance policy in question expressly excluded coverage for asset conversions and improper commingling of client funds. Granting summary judgment in favor of the law firm, the United Sates District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that, notwithstanding the exclusion, the malpractice carrier was required to provide coverage to their insureds.

Exxon Denied Use Variance

The Holmdel Township zoning ordinance permits a variety of convenience uses in their neighborhood convenience zone. Exxon Corp. filed an application to the Zoning Board seeking a ruling that their service station-convenience store was a permitted use in the zone and, in the alternative, seeking a use variance. The Board denied the relief requested and Exxon appealed to the Superior Court. We undertook to defend the Board's decision. In a lengthy opinion, the Superior Court agreed with the Board, ruling that the proposed use was not a permitted one, nor was Exxon entitled to a use variance.