Represented a health care provider before the licensing board investigating the diagnosis and treatment of recurrent memories.

Represented a security company in a wrongful death suit of a young mother who was shot and killed at her apartment complex.

Represented a management company of a hotel and restaurant complex where it was alleged multiple employees of the restaurant suffered permanent brain damage from carbon monoxide.

Representative Matters

Represented a health care provider before the licensing board investigating the diagnosis and treatment of recurrent memories.

Represented a security company in a wrongful death suit of a young mother who was shot and killed at her apartment complex.

Represented a management company of a hotel and restaurant complex where it was alleged multiple employees of the restaurant suffered permanent brain damage from carbon monoxide.

Representative Matters

Hanrahan and Choren Persuade Court to Grant Dispositive Motion in Campus Assault Case

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) obtained dismissal of an eleven-count complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on behalf of two entities affiliated with a local university’s student housing operations. The case arose from a horrific sexual assault that occurred on campus in August of 2022. The plaintiffs sued Wilson Elser’s clients, asserting a wide range of claims, including negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, vicarious liability, respondeat superior, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to provide a safe workplace, negligence per se, breach of bond, loss of consortium, and joint enterprise liability – and sought $1.5 million in damages.

Catherine and Perry filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss, adopting and incorporating three prior motions to dismiss from a predecessor case and crafting detailed arguments demonstrating that the plaintiffs failed to plead any facts establishing that their clients, rather than the staffing company that employed both the victim and the assailant, had any responsibility for hiring, supervising, or controlling the perpetrator. They further established that the staffing company maintained "absolute and exclusive" authority over concierge personnel, and that the plaintiffs themselves had admitted in their prior lawsuit that the assailant was employed and paid by an entirely different entity. In a detailed nine-page order, the Court found Wilson Elser’s arguments persuasive and ruled that all the plaintiffs' claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on the court's prior dismissal order in the related action. Accordingly, the court granted the motion and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Pernell A. Choren

Hanrahan, Farrell & Creps Secure Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim

Washington, D.C., partners Catherine Hanrahan and Kevin Farrell and associate Madeline Creps won summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA). The plaintiff community association claimed that DCHA and other entities failed to pay assessments owed pursuant to the Declaration and Bylaws that govern the development. After successfully barring the equitable claims filed against DCHA in a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment was filed on the one remaining breach of contract count. DCHA argued that the claim failed as a matter of law because the Declaration unambiguously waived DCHA’s liability for assessments. In opposition, the plaintiff argued there were contradictory clauses in the Declaration that a jury must reconcile. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia determined that DCHA was entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law, finding that there was no ambiguity in the language of the Declaration and opining that while DCHA is the legal owner in fee simple of the Community and Daycare Lot at issue, the Declaration’s definition of “owner” as it is used throughout the Declaration plainly excludes DCHA. The court concluded that because the plain language of the agreement unambiguously waives DCHA’s responsibility for paying assessments, the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law, and granted our Motion for Summary Judgment. This is a significant win for DCHA because the legal issues resolved in this matter potentially impact its obligations in many other affordable housing development projects. 

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Kevin P. Farrell

Hanrahan & Davis Win on Multiple Failures to Prove Service

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Stuart Davis (Associate-Washington, DC) won an appeal before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on behalf of a dental practice and one of its dentists after filing a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for improper service. D.C.’s highest court affirmed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the complaint due to the plaintiff’s multiple failures to prove service pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. Rule 4. The Court’s opinion relied on substantial portions of Catherine and Stuart’s briefing, particularly the argument that actual notice of a claim is immaterial to the sufficiency of service of process. The appellate win not only saved the client needless litigation expenses but also provides a road map to effectively oppose similar deficient service of process cases in the future. 

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Stuart W. Davis

Hanrahan & Choren Persuade D.C. Superior Court to Grant Dispositive Motion

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Pernell “Perry” Choren (Senior Associate-Washington, DC) obtained dismissal of the plaintiff’s Complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of a local government agency and one of its employees after filing a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide timely pre-litigation notice. Catherine and Perry filed a motion to dismiss that argued that the plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for her failure to comply with the strict notice requirements of D.C. Code § 6-205(a). In an oral ruling, the Court found Catherine and Perry’s arguments persuasive and ruled that the plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by her failure to provide compliant § 6-205(a) before filing suit. Accordingly, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims. This is the seventh dismissal that Catherine and Perry have secured on behalf of this same client in the past year and a half. 

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Pernell A. Choren

Hanrahan and Choren Persuade Plaintiff’s Counsel to Voluntarily Dismiss Case Based on Pending Motion to Dismiss

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Pernell “Perry” Choren (Senior Associate-Washington, DC) recently persuaded plaintiff’s counsel to voluntarily dismiss all claims asserted against their client after filing a motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff’s failure to provide timely pre-litigation notice. Their client, a local government agency, was sued pertaining to the operation and management of a large residential property. Catherine and Perry filed a motion to dismiss that argued the plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for her failure to comply with the strict notice requirements of D.C. Code § 6-205(a). Plaintiff’s counsel found Catherine and Perry’s arguments persuasive and agreed to voluntarily dismiss all claims with prejudice. This is the sixth dismissal that Catherine and Perry have secured on behalf of this same client this calendar year.

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Pernell A. Choren

Hanrahan and Choren Successfully Argue Statute of Limitations, D.C. Code § 6-205(a) and Rule 12(b)(6) Defenses to Secure Complaint Dismissal

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Pernell “Perry” Choren (Senior Associate-Washington, DC) obtained dismissal in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of a local government agency that was sued pertaining to the operation and management of a large residential property. Catherine and Perry argued that the plaintiff’s Complaint (1) was duplicative of allegations she was arguing in related litigation; (2) must be dismissed for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the strict notice requirements of D.C. Code § 6-205(a); and (3) to the extent she was alleging equitable and/or contractual claims within, must be barred by the doctrine of laches and the applicable statute of limitations. In a written decision, the court found Catherine and Perry’s arguments persuasive and ruled that the plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, for the plaintiff’s failure to provide compliant § 6-205(a) before filing suit, and because her allegations are likely being addressed in the aforementioned related litigation. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. This is the fifth dispositive motion victory that Catherine and Perry have achieved on behalf of this same client this calendar year.

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Pernell A. Choren

Hanrahan and Choren Successfully Argue D.C. Code § 6-205(a) Defense and Secure Claim Dismissal

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Pernell “Perry” Choren (Associate-Washington, DC) obtained dismissal in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of a local government agency sued for allegations of negligence pertaining to the operation and management of a large residential property. The court’s primary focus was on the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s mandatory written notice of claim pursuant to D.C. Code § 6-205(a). In their Motion to Dismiss, Catherine and Perry argued that neither of the plaintiff’s alleged § 6-205 notices were submitted to the correct individual at the agency as set forth in the statute. Additionally, they argued that the plaintiff was too vague in describing the time that she was injured and the location of the alleged incident. The court initially granted the  Motion to Dismiss, but provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint and further support how she was compliant with § 6-205. Catherine and Perry renewed their Motion to Dismiss, fully briefed by both parties, and the court held a remote motion hearing. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court found Catherine and Perry’s arguments persuasive and ruled that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence demonstrating that she timely provided the mandatory written notice of claim to the correct individual at the agency. Additionally, the court correctly ruled that actual notice by the agency is not a consideration in a § 6-205 analysis. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss.

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Pernell A. Choren

Hanrahan, Warshauer and Choren Successfully Defend Local Government Agency

Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and DC associates Evan Warshauer and Pernell Choren obtained summary judgment in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of a local government agency sued for allegations of negligence and breach of contract pertaining to the management of the plaintiff’s apartment. The court’s primary focus was on the sufficiency of plaintiff’s mandatory notice of claim pursuant to D.C. Code § 6-205(a). In their Motion to Dismiss, Catherine, Evan and Perry argued that not only were all of plaintiff’s alleged notices untimely, but none of them was submitted to the correct individual at the agency as set forth in the statute. The court ordered supplemental briefing from the parties to specifically address whether written notice was timely provided to the right person. Once that was completed, and with the Motion to Dismiss still pending, Catherine, Evan, and Perry opted to file a Motion for Judgment, further arguing that the plaintiff did not provide the mandatory notice of claim. In a 14-page decision, the court ultimately decided that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence to create a genuine dispute concerning whether she timely provided a mandatory notice of claim to the correct individual at the agency. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Judgment.

Catherine A. Hanrahan and Pernell A. Choren

Firm Highlights

Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
Client Wins
Priore and Lauricella Secure Key Appellate Division Ruling Annulling and Remanding New York State Department of Labor License Denial
Albany partners Christopher Priore and Peter Lauricella successfully represented a research company and its owner/president in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, challenging the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) denial of the clients’ application for a license to purchase, own, possess, and transport explosives (O&P license). The company, which conducts limited fireworks displays as part of its business, must maintain an O&P license issued under Labor Law Article 16, which must be renewed annually. In July 2021, our owner client applied to renew the company’s O&P license. The DOL denied the application on the sole ground that neither the owner nor any employee held a current Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC), despite the owner having held a PCC for many years and the company having previously obtained O&P license renewals without one. The denial was upheld after an administrative hearing and adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Chris and Peter challenged the Commissioner's authority to impose a blanket PCC requirement as a prerequisite for O&P licensure. The central legal issue was whether the Department of Labor's internal policy – mandating that all O&P license applicants hold or employ someone with a PCC credential – constituted a "rule" subject to the formal rulemaking procedures of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They presented evidence that the DOL had historically approved O&P license applications without a PCC, and only later, after internal discussions and consultation with counsel, adopted this requirement and added a question about PCCs to the application form – all without undertaking the required rulemaking process. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and annulled the Commissioner's determination. The court held that the mandatory PCC requirement was a generally applicable rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with SAPA's formal rulemaking procedures. Because the DOL failed to do so, the requirement was unenforceable. The matter was remitted to the DOL to evaluate the O&P license application at issue in accordance with properly promulgated rules and our clients’ particular facts and circumstances.  
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
Publications
Law.com Features Espey Article Examining Appellate Clarification on NJ Fee-Shifting Statute Requirements
Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) authored “Who ‘Prevails’ Under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Fee-Shifting Statute,” published April 16, 2026, on Law.com and in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article examines the recent published Appellate Division decision in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills (March 20, 2026), which clarifies when a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Residents’ Rights Act (NHA) for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Peter explains that, in affirming the trial court, the appellate court held that fee-shifting under the NHA requires proof of a statutory violation, proximate cause, and resulting damages – rejecting the idea that a negligence-based recovery alone is sufficient for fee shifting. The article also highlights practical considerations, such as the critical role of thorough documentation in defending skilled nursing facility claims. Peter concludes that “Going forward, future cases may focus on what constitutes a violation of rights under the NHA.”
Read more
Events
Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics
Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.
Read more
Publications
Claims Journal Features Bortnick and Michaud Article on Subrogation After Cyber Breaches: Lessons from Axis and Travelers
Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 
Read more
Events
The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions
David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions” on April 23, 2026. This session addresses standing and predominance challenges, damages models, and the procedural complexities that arise when a certified class includes individuals who may not have suffered cognizable harm. David will analyze current case law, explore strategies for certification and decertification motions, and discuss practical solutions for managing these issues at trial.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Events
Cannabis Risk in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment
Ian Stewart, cochair of Wilson Elser’s Cannabis Law Practice, will present the webinar “Cannabis in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment” on April 23, 2026, hosted by the Claims and Litigation Alliance (CLM) and the Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA), affiliated with The Institutes. Ian’s panel will explore evolving claim trends in cannabis operations, examining the cannabis product liability landscape, including testing lab failures and related claims, as well as emerging product, environmental, and toxic tort exposures. The panel will also address state versus federal legal conflicts around both marijuana and hemp, including rescheduling and the new Farm Bill definition of hemp, as well as contract enforceability and the rights of cannabis litigants.
Read more
News
Allin Named to 2026 Southwest Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
Client Wins
Priore and Lauricella Secure Key Appellate Division Ruling Annulling and Remanding New York State Department of Labor License Denial
Albany partners Christopher Priore and Peter Lauricella successfully represented a research company and its owner/president in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, challenging the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) denial of the clients’ application for a license to purchase, own, possess, and transport explosives (O&P license). The company, which conducts limited fireworks displays as part of its business, must maintain an O&P license issued under Labor Law Article 16, which must be renewed annually. In July 2021, our owner client applied to renew the company’s O&P license. The DOL denied the application on the sole ground that neither the owner nor any employee held a current Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC), despite the owner having held a PCC for many years and the company having previously obtained O&P license renewals without one. The denial was upheld after an administrative hearing and adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Chris and Peter challenged the Commissioner's authority to impose a blanket PCC requirement as a prerequisite for O&P licensure. The central legal issue was whether the Department of Labor's internal policy – mandating that all O&P license applicants hold or employ someone with a PCC credential – constituted a "rule" subject to the formal rulemaking procedures of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They presented evidence that the DOL had historically approved O&P license applications without a PCC, and only later, after internal discussions and consultation with counsel, adopted this requirement and added a question about PCCs to the application form – all without undertaking the required rulemaking process. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and annulled the Commissioner's determination. The court held that the mandatory PCC requirement was a generally applicable rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with SAPA's formal rulemaking procedures. Because the DOL failed to do so, the requirement was unenforceable. The matter was remitted to the DOL to evaluate the O&P license application at issue in accordance with properly promulgated rules and our clients’ particular facts and circumstances.  
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
Publications
Law.com Features Espey Article Examining Appellate Clarification on NJ Fee-Shifting Statute Requirements
Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) authored “Who ‘Prevails’ Under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Fee-Shifting Statute,” published April 16, 2026, on Law.com and in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article examines the recent published Appellate Division decision in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills (March 20, 2026), which clarifies when a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Residents’ Rights Act (NHA) for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Peter explains that, in affirming the trial court, the appellate court held that fee-shifting under the NHA requires proof of a statutory violation, proximate cause, and resulting damages – rejecting the idea that a negligence-based recovery alone is sufficient for fee shifting. The article also highlights practical considerations, such as the critical role of thorough documentation in defending skilled nursing facility claims. Peter concludes that “Going forward, future cases may focus on what constitutes a violation of rights under the NHA.”
Read more
Events
Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics
Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.
Read more
Publications
Claims Journal Features Bortnick and Michaud Article on Subrogation After Cyber Breaches: Lessons from Axis and Travelers
Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 
Read more
Events
The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions
David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “The Inclusion of Uninjured Members in Certified Class Actions” on April 23, 2026. This session addresses standing and predominance challenges, damages models, and the procedural complexities that arise when a certified class includes individuals who may not have suffered cognizable harm. David will analyze current case law, explore strategies for certification and decertification motions, and discuss practical solutions for managing these issues at trial.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Expands Design Professionals and Construction Practices with New Denver Partner
New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.
Read more
Events
Cannabis Risk in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment
Ian Stewart, cochair of Wilson Elser’s Cannabis Law Practice, will present the webinar “Cannabis in a Patchwork Regulatory Environment” on April 23, 2026, hosted by the Claims and Litigation Alliance (CLM) and the Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA), affiliated with The Institutes. Ian’s panel will explore evolving claim trends in cannabis operations, examining the cannabis product liability landscape, including testing lab failures and related claims, as well as emerging product, environmental, and toxic tort exposures. The panel will also address state versus federal legal conflicts around both marijuana and hemp, including rescheduling and the new Farm Bill definition of hemp, as well as contract enforceability and the rights of cannabis litigants.
Read more
News
Allin Named to 2026 Southwest Super Lawyers Rising Stars
Super Lawyers® has named Taylor H. Allin (Partner-Phoenix, AZ) to the 2026 Southwest Rising Stars™ list for the sixth consecutive year. Taylor is included in the Transportation/Maritime category. His complex litigation practice includes defending a wide range of transportation matters and marine and admiralty claims. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.
Read more
Publications
Delay Defeats Arbitration: Nevada High Court Finds 17 Months Too Long
While arbitration clauses are ubiquitous in contracts, they are meaningless if the parties do not move quickly enough to enforce them. In Lennar Communities Nevada, LLC v. Whalen, the plaintiff executed a residential purchase and sale agreement that included an arbitration clause. She then tripped and fell within the community. She sued the developer, and the parties participated in extensive discovery. The developer did not attempt to enforce the arbitration clause for 17 months. While waiver is disfavored, the Supreme Court concluded that the three-factor test for waiver was satisfied. First, the developer knew of the waiver. Second, they acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate by actively litigating the case in court for such a long time. The Court then introduced a new factor to the analysis. “[C]ourts should consider the totality of the circumstances when evaluating whether a party has already litigated an issue it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” That factor was met too. The Court next considered whether not invoking the arbitration clause earlier prejudiced the plaintiff. It expressed doubt whether that factor was valid but did not overrule it. Regardless, prejudice was found because the developer was able to obtain discovery in court that typically is unavailable in arbitration. The opinion reiterates the importance of identifying potential arbitration clauses and deciding whether to invoke them as soon as possible.
Read more
Client Wins
Priore and Lauricella Secure Key Appellate Division Ruling Annulling and Remanding New York State Department of Labor License Denial
Albany partners Christopher Priore and Peter Lauricella successfully represented a research company and its owner/president in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, challenging the New York State Department of Labor’s (DOL) denial of the clients’ application for a license to purchase, own, possess, and transport explosives (O&P license). The company, which conducts limited fireworks displays as part of its business, must maintain an O&P license issued under Labor Law Article 16, which must be renewed annually. In July 2021, our owner client applied to renew the company’s O&P license. The DOL denied the application on the sole ground that neither the owner nor any employee held a current Pyrotechnician Certificate of Competence (PCC), despite the owner having held a PCC for many years and the company having previously obtained O&P license renewals without one. The denial was upheld after an administrative hearing and adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Chris and Peter challenged the Commissioner's authority to impose a blanket PCC requirement as a prerequisite for O&P licensure. The central legal issue was whether the Department of Labor's internal policy – mandating that all O&P license applicants hold or employ someone with a PCC credential – constituted a "rule" subject to the formal rulemaking procedures of the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA). They presented evidence that the DOL had historically approved O&P license applications without a PCC, and only later, after internal discussions and consultation with counsel, adopted this requirement and added a question about PCCs to the application form – all without undertaking the required rulemaking process. The Appellate Division unanimously agreed and annulled the Commissioner's determination. The court held that the mandatory PCC requirement was a generally applicable rule that should have been promulgated in accordance with SAPA's formal rulemaking procedures. Because the DOL failed to do so, the requirement was unenforceable. The matter was remitted to the DOL to evaluate the O&P license application at issue in accordance with properly promulgated rules and our clients’ particular facts and circumstances.  
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Rossi Defeat Claims Against Property Owner in Tenant Injury Lawsuit
Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.
Read more
Publications
Law.com Features Espey Article Examining Appellate Clarification on NJ Fee-Shifting Statute Requirements
Peter Espey (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) authored “Who ‘Prevails’ Under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Fee-Shifting Statute,” published April 16, 2026, on Law.com and in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article examines the recent published Appellate Division decision in Emmons v. Elmwood Hills (March 20, 2026), which clarifies when a plaintiff qualifies as a “prevailing party” under New Jersey’s Nursing Home Responsibilities and Residents’ Rights Act (NHA) for purposes of recovering attorney’s fees and costs. Peter explains that, in affirming the trial court, the appellate court held that fee-shifting under the NHA requires proof of a statutory violation, proximate cause, and resulting damages – rejecting the idea that a negligence-based recovery alone is sufficient for fee shifting. The article also highlights practical considerations, such as the critical role of thorough documentation in defending skilled nursing facility claims. Peter concludes that “Going forward, future cases may focus on what constitutes a violation of rights under the NHA.”
Read more
Events
Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics
Brian Myers (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Class Action Settlements: Legal Issues and Practical Mechanics” on April 22, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of the settlement process, from negotiation protocols and structuring class benefits to satisfying fairness requirements, managing notice obligations, and addressing attorney fee methodologies. Brian will offer guidance on surviving objections and avoiding common procedural pitfalls that can derail even well-negotiated resolutions.
Read more
Publications
Claims Journal Features Bortnick and Michaud Article on Subrogation After Cyber Breaches: Lessons from Axis and Travelers
Richard Bortnick (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) and Charina Michaud (Associate-Chicago, IL) coauthored “Legal Analysis: Insurer Subrogation Under Scrutiny,” appearing in the April 17, 2026, posting of Claims Journal. The article analyzes two recent decisions – Axis Insurance Co. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc. and Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America v. Blackbaud, Inc. – that examine the scope of insurers’ subrogation rights in the wake of data security breaches. Rick and Charina explain that while the First Circuit in Axis rejected subrogation claims against a downstream vendor for lack of contractual privity, the Delaware Supreme Court in Travelers allowed similar claims to proceed where a direct contractual relationship existed. Together, the decisions clarify that subrogation claims in the cybersecurity context hinge on the existence and proper pleading of contractual relationships between the insured and the alleged wrongdoer. “Absent a contractual relationship between the insured and the alleged subrogee, a claim for indemnity or subrogation is unlikely to survive – particularly in jurisdictions that follow the reasoning in Axis.” Rick and Charina further explore how these rulings shape risk allocation across vendor chains and offer practical considerations for drafting and enforcing data security agreements. 
Read more
Privacy Settings
Your Privacy Choices
We value your privacy. Under privacy laws in your jurisdiction, you have the right to control how your personal information is used, including the right to opt out of the “sale” or “sharing” of your personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising. You may also limit the use of your sensitive personal information.

Below, you can review and adjust your cookie and data sharing preferences. For more information about how we use your data, please see our Privacy Policy.

Your Rights and Choices

Opt Out of Sale or Sharing: You may opt out of the sale or sharing of your personal information for advertising and analytics purposes by turning off Advertising & Targeting Cookies. We will honor your choice and will not sell or share your personal information for these purposes unless you enable these cookies again. Wilson Elser does not sell or share personal information in any other manner.

Limit Use of Sensitive Personal Information: If we collect sensitive personal information, you may limit its use to only what is necessary to provide requested services by adjusting your preferences here. Please contact privacy@wilsonelser.com with any questions.

Global Privacy Control: We honor browser-based opt-out signals, such as the Global Privacy Control (GPC). If we detect such a signal, your opt-out preference will be automatically applied.
These cookies are essential for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually set in response to actions made by you, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in, or filling in forms.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalization. If you do not allow these cookies, some or all of these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They may be set through our site by us or our analytics partners to understand your interests and deliver more relevant content to you. If you do not allow these cookies, we will not know when you have visited our site