GRSLL&B Attorneys Serve as Arbitrators

Newsworthy Item - In November of 2007, Philip A. Garubo and Jeffrey S. Bell  were re-certified by the Superior Court of New Jersey as Arbitrators in the Court's Mandatory Arbitration Program.   Mr. Garubo  and Mr. Bell,  routinely sit as Arbitrators on behalf of the Superior Court of New Jersey in various counties throughout the State.

Publications

Attorneys at GRSLL&B have recently published two articles in the quarterly newsletter of PAR, Ltd.  PAR is an association of approximately 60 insurance agencies located throughout the country.  GRSLL&B defends  these entities against E&O claims in New Jersey and provides legal assistance for matters arising elsewhere.  Robert D. Rosenwasser authored an article that appears in the Fourth Quarter 2007 issue, concerning non-compete agreements in the insurance brokerage industry.  Audrey Shields and Kenneth Rothschild collaborated on an article for the First Quarter 2008 edition, which discusses state anti-rebating rules.  Copies of both articles can also be obtained by contacting us directly.

Large Class Action Successfully Resolved

In February of 2007, GRSLL&B was requested by the insurance carrier for a developer and owner of private dams to assume the defense of a class action lawsuit that had been ongoing for over two and half years.  The suit involved the catastrophic failure of multiple dams in the Rancocas Creek Watershed.  At stake was more than $25 million claimed in damages by more than 200 plaintiffs.  Within a short time of assuming the defense, Philip A. Lundell, Jr., and Eric S. Schlesinger were able to get up to speed in a litigation which involved over 40 depositions and over 60,000 documents.  At a critical juncture, when proceeding would have resulted in significant additional defense costs, Phil and Eric were able to successfully resolve the claims against the client for less than 3% of the alleged damages.

Three Shareholders Again Named “Super Lawyers®”; One Also Named by Best Lawyers®

For the third year in a row, three attorneys at GRSLL&B have been honored by their peers by being identified in the annual “Super Lawyers®” publication.  Kenneth R. Rothschild was named a Super Lawyer® in Insurance Coverage; Gary S. Spagnola was named in the category of Civil Rights Litigation, and Philip A. Lundell, Jr. was named in the area of Civil Litigation Defense.  New Jersey Super Lawyers is published annually in the April issue of New Jersey Monthly Magazine and New Jersey Super Lawyers® Magazine.  Super Lawyers® names New Jersey’s top lawyers as chosen by their peers and through independent research conducted by the publishers of Law & Politics Magazine.

Mr. Rothschild was also named in the 2008 listing of Best Lawyers® for New York/New Jersey in the field of construction litigation.

Successful Appeal on Whistleblower Claim

GRSLL&B is pleased to report that on December 31, 2007, in Lau v. Plymouth Environmental, Inc., Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s granting of Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Plymouth. This case involved allegations by the Plaintiff, an asbestos removal supervisor, against his employer, Plymouth, for violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1.  In representing Defendant Plymouth, Christopher H. Westrick, Esq., argued to the Appellate Division that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy all four elements of a CEPA claim. In finding for Defendant and affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division, found that the Plaintiff could not even satisfy the first prong of the CEPA test. Specifically, it held that “the facts of this case do not indicate that the Plaintiff reasonably believed that performing the requested job would have violated a law.”  In addition, the Appellate Division commented on the fourth prong of the CEPA test as it held that the Plaintiff could not demonstrate that “a causal connection exists between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment action” taken by Defendant Plymouth.  Thus, the Appellate Division found that the Plaintiff’s own conduct caused the Defendant to take action against him, apart from his alleged whistle-blowing activities.