| |
|
COAST TO COAST QUARTERLY
Transportation and Insurance Newsletter |
Spring 2007, Volume 2, Issue 1 |
|
|
McElfish Law Firm |
|
| |
A Traumatic Brain Injury Question :
"Are you prepared for your cross-examination before the jury today doctor?"
By
Raymond D. McElfish
|
|
This question became one of my favorite opening questions on cross-examination of an expert witness (but one of the most dangerous questions as well). I used to think that checking an expert’s background and the papers that were published was busy work, something that took up time and space, or was done just to say it was done. This article is directed to those young trial lawyers who wish to impress juries, turn it up a notch as they say, or plain destroy an expert on the way to victory if the groundwork is correctly laid. Suffice it to say, checking the work of an expert you may confront is not busy
|
work or something to fill in the time, but one of the most valuable tools on cross-examination that may be available, even if not readily visible at the time.
The old axioms that a trial lawyer should not challenge an expert on his or her particular field of expertise and that you never ask a question to which you do not know the answer, both still hold true with some exception. But, challenging an expert on something he or she may have written or a position they have taken in writing, with the right preparedness, is an effective if not persuasive tool. This is the story of “The Moss Paper”.
Click to continue reading
Note: This article is also available in print in The Transportation Lawyer, Volume 8, Number 4, February 2007 and begins on page 53.
|
|
The 3PL Dilemma : Trucking Broker/Logistic Provider Liability
By Joseph W. Pappalardo, Gallagher Sharp, Cleveland OH |
|
Recent federal case law is largely favorable for shielding broker/logistics (3PL) companies from liability due to injuries caused by motor carriers and their drivers. Negligent hiring remains a concern where the motor carrier has a poor safety record or is poorly rated. The broker/logistics company must be careful to satisfy itself that the motor carrier is properly qualified, but not exercise the sort of control, which would destroy the independent contractor relationship. Finally, the unwary broker/logistics company could design a route where |
|
Joseph W. Pappalardo
Gallagher Sharp jpappalardo@gallaghersharp.com (216)-522-1320
|
Who knew a disclaimer of coverage under a Non-trucking policy had to be sent to a motor carrier trucking company?: The many consequences of an invalid New York Non-Trucking Endorsement
By Teresa Gruber, McElfish Law Firm
|
|
Not only are New York Non-trucking endorsements failing to exclude coverage in actual non-trucking situations, those same non-trucking endorsements that have been held to be invalid as against public policy in New York are now being sought to actually provide coverage for trucking company motor carriers. As many of you know, or may recall from last month’s newsletter in which Ray McElfish discussed non-trucking endorsements, a standard non-trucking automobile liability exclusion is written for the express purpose of excluding coverage under a non-trucking automobile liability policy when an insured tractor is used in the business of a motor carrier or trucking company. After the landmark decision in Royal v. Providence Washington, 92 N.Y.2d 653 (1998), non-trucking policies containing ISO Form CA 2309
|
or similar endorsements to the one analyzed in Royal were often held to be pro rata or co-primary along with the policy of the motor carrier in New York State, to the chagrin of many non-trucking insurers. These non-truck insurers often felt they should owe no coverage at all, as the tractor vehicle was attached to a trailer and was being operated in the business of motor carrier. Such a circumstance was sought specifically to be excluded under the non-truck exclusion, for which a disproportionately small premium was collected, and such a circumstance should properly be covered by the motor carrier’s trucking policy, a policy that would command much higher premiums for the increased risk associated with operating a tractor-trailer vehicle.
Click to read the entire article
|
Teresa Gruber
McElfish Law Firm tgruber@mcelfishlaw.com (216)307-5100
|
Copyright © 2005 McELfishLaw,
LLC Web Site contains information of general interest to the public
and does not constitute legal advice. No claims, promises or guarantees
about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information
contained in or linked to this web site are made. The receipt of
this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.
As legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of
each case, and laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein
should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
=== Disclaimer ===
The information in this e-mail is confidential, may be legally
privileged and is intended solely for the addressee. If the reader
of this communication is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this communication in error
and that any use, review, dissemination, distribution, or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail,
and delete this e-mail and any copy thereof. As you may know,
e-mails sent via Internet can easily be altered or manipulated
by third persons. For this reason, we do not assume any responsibility
for changes made to this message after it was sent. E-mail transmissions
carry a risk of virus and we advise you to perform your own virus
checks. We accept no liability for any loss or damage as a result
of any form of e-mail borne virus.
|
|
|
