In Memorium – Donald J. P. Sweeney – 1938-2021Please Click Here
30Jul 2024

On July 9, 2024 the New Jersey Appellate Division held that a retail operator with drive-through service was entitled to defense and indemnification from a customer’s personal automobile liability policy, reasoning that serving the drive-through customer qualified as “using” her vehicle.  Learn more by reading Christopher Hartt’s Case Law Update: Retail/Auto: Defense and Indemnification.

01Jul 2024

Partner J. Michael Kunsch was appointed to the Hearing Committee of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for a three-year term.  Hearing Committee Members perform essential roles in Pennsylvania’s disciplinary system, chief among them to review Disciplinary Counsel’s recommended dispositions and to conduct hearings into formal charges of attorney misconduct and petitions for reinstatement.

28Jun 2024

Partner Michael Kunsch authored an insightful article,  No Standards:  Defending Product Liability Claims When Compliance with Standards is In admissiblepublished in the Summer 2024 USLAW Magazine.  The article analyzes Sullivan, explores evidentiary issues that are likely to arise from the decision, and offers practice tips for defending design defect cases when compliance with standards is inadmissible.

28Jun 2024

On Friday, June 14, 2024, Partner Louis J. Vogel prevailed on a Plaintiff’s petition to the New Jersey Supreme Court seeking to reverse the entry of summary judgment in favor of an HVAC contractor. The litigation arose out of a catastrophic fire involving a residential property and included claims of common law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to 227, and negligence. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the HVAC contractor.

13Jun 2024

On Friday, June 7, 2024, Sweeney & Sheehan Partner Louis J. Vogel, Jr. obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of a contractor in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County.  The Plaintiff fell more than two stories from a roof.  He alleged to have fallen due to a dangerous and hazardous condition created by the contractor.   The Plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries in the multi-story fall, including multiple fractures requiring surgical interventions.  Plaintiff filed negligence claims against the contractor.  After briefing and oral argument, the Court granted summary judgment, concluding that the Plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof and the evidence of record did not establish that any act or omission of the contractor was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s fall.