Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage loan servicer and against subsequent purchaser on issue of first impression that a homeowner’s association foreclosure of a delinquent assessment lien held in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void under state law. Successfully argued appeal before Nevada Supreme Court resulting in published decision. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage lender in plaintiffs’ fraud, breach of contract and negligence claims for receiving a three-year adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) instead of alleged promised seven-year ARM by establishing plaintiffs had no legally cognizable damages because their interest rate decreased. Successfully defended plaintiffs’ appeal, including oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Obtained dismissal of borrower’s amended complaint by establishing that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) in effect prior to Dodd-Frank Amendments did not require the loan servicer to disclose the owner of the note. Affirmed on appeal by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Successfully defended appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of summary judgment holding that mortgage loan servicer owed the plaintiff no obligation to modify her loan. 

Obtained judgment as a matter of law in favor of a casino at the close of plaintiff’s case-in-chief in a catastrophic personal injury trial by establishing that the casino employee’s alleged conduct was not in the course and scope of their employment. Plaintiff had alleged in amended pleadings that post-injury treatment resulted in her quadriplegia. By successfully trifurcating the trial into liability, damages and punitive damages stages, prevented the jury from ever receiving evidence of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of governmental entity in flood case by establishing that downstream landowner was not third-party beneficiary of county’s indemnity agreement with upstream landowner. Affirmed on appeal. 

Obtained partial summary judgment on a punitive damages claim against parents of a child alleged to have shot another child with a pebble from a slingshot. 

Obtained dismissal of a property owner’s claim against a title insurance carrier following an alleged forged conveyance to the carrier’s insured. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage servicer and government-sponsored enterprise against borrower who claimed new mortgage servicer did not hold the note. Summary judgment included counterclaim for judicial foreclosure against borrower. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained favorable settlement at mediation in plaintiff’s negligence, strict liability and premises liability claims against gun show promoter following accidental shooting. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained court-approved settlement in wrongful death claims against apartment owner following alleged heat stroke due to purportedly inoperable air conditioner. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained favorable settlement at judicial settlement conference in wrongful death claim against commercial driver by establishing that decedent bicyclist was at least comparatively negligent by riding through intersection in bicycle lane to the right of right-turning vehicles. 

Successfully issued DMCA takedown request causing webhosting service to remove competitor’s website infringing on client’s intellectual property. 

Representative Matters

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage loan servicer and against subsequent purchaser on issue of first impression that a homeowner’s association foreclosure of a delinquent assessment lien held in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void under state law. Successfully argued appeal before Nevada Supreme Court resulting in published decision. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage lender in plaintiffs’ fraud, breach of contract and negligence claims for receiving a three-year adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) instead of alleged promised seven-year ARM by establishing plaintiffs had no legally cognizable damages because their interest rate decreased. Successfully defended plaintiffs’ appeal, including oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Obtained dismissal of borrower’s amended complaint by establishing that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) in effect prior to Dodd-Frank Amendments did not require the loan servicer to disclose the owner of the note. Affirmed on appeal by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Successfully defended appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of summary judgment holding that mortgage loan servicer owed the plaintiff no obligation to modify her loan. 

Obtained judgment as a matter of law in favor of a casino at the close of plaintiff’s case-in-chief in a catastrophic personal injury trial by establishing that the casino employee’s alleged conduct was not in the course and scope of their employment. Plaintiff had alleged in amended pleadings that post-injury treatment resulted in her quadriplegia. By successfully trifurcating the trial into liability, damages and punitive damages stages, prevented the jury from ever receiving evidence of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of governmental entity in flood case by establishing that downstream landowner was not third-party beneficiary of county’s indemnity agreement with upstream landowner. Affirmed on appeal. 

Obtained partial summary judgment on a punitive damages claim against parents of a child alleged to have shot another child with a pebble from a slingshot. 

Obtained dismissal of a property owner’s claim against a title insurance carrier following an alleged forged conveyance to the carrier’s insured. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage servicer and government-sponsored enterprise against borrower who claimed new mortgage servicer did not hold the note. Summary judgment included counterclaim for judicial foreclosure against borrower. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained favorable settlement at mediation in plaintiff’s negligence, strict liability and premises liability claims against gun show promoter following accidental shooting. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained court-approved settlement in wrongful death claims against apartment owner following alleged heat stroke due to purportedly inoperable air conditioner. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained favorable settlement at judicial settlement conference in wrongful death claim against commercial driver by establishing that decedent bicyclist was at least comparatively negligent by riding through intersection in bicycle lane to the right of right-turning vehicles. 

Successfully issued DMCA takedown request causing webhosting service to remove competitor’s website infringing on client’s intellectual property. 

Representative Matters

Dodrill, Stewart, and Ordorica Convince Various Opposing Counsel to Drop Recent Suits Against Firm Clients

Colt Dodrill (Partner-Phoenix), Katherine Stewart (Of Counsel-Phoenix), and Jake Ordorica (Associate-Las Vegas) have obtained voluntary dismissals of the firm’s car-sharing platform client and various vehicle owners without having to file motions to dismiss. Colt, Katie, and Jake have called and educated multiple plaintiffs’ counsel in Arizona and Nevada on their states’ respective peer-to-peer car-sharing statutes, explaining the facts of various cases and how clients are immune from suit under those statutes. They also forwarded favorable rulings to opposing counsel from prior cases, holding that no negligent entrustment claim will stand when the shared-vehicle driver has a valid driver’s license, and finding clients are not vicariously liable for each driver’s negligence. This wave of voluntary dismissals by separate plaintiffs’ firms in two states has saved Wilson Elser clients substantial defense costs and allowed carriers to close files quickly.   

Colt B. Dodrill, Katherine A. Stewart and Jake A. Ordorica

Dodrill and Ordorica Obtain Dismissal in Hit-and-Run

Colt Dodrill (Partner-Phoenix) and Jake Ordorica (Associate-Las Vegas) successfully moved in Nevada’s Clark County District Court to dismiss negligence claims against Wilson Elser’s clients – a car-sharing platform and the vehicle owner. The plaintiff alleged that the clients negligently entrusted the car to a “Doe” driver who hit her vehicle and fled the scene. After opposing counsel refused to voluntarily dismiss our clients, Colt and Jake argued that the shared vehicle driver’s valid license belied the negligent entrustment claim and that such liability does not extend to successive entrustments. Colt and Jake further argued that, under state peer-to-peer car sharing statutes, federal law bars vicarious liability claims. The Court agreed, granting Wilson Elser’s motion two days before the scheduled hearing.

Colt B. Dodrill and Jake A. Ordorica

Dodrill Obtains Summary Judgment on Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision Claims in Catastrophic Trucking

Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ/Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment in Elko, Nevada District Court on negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims against the firm’s client trucking company. When plaintiff sought to conduct discovery into our client’s policies and procedures in an accident casem Colt moved for summary judgment arguing the negligent hiring, training, supervision claims were redundant and irrelevant because the driver’s course and scope were admitted. At oral argument, Colt challenged plaintiff’s reliance on intentional tort cases where course and scope were disputed. The court agreed and entered summary judgment on plaintiff’s redundant claims. This rendered moot the plaintiff’s proposed 30(b)(6) deposition of our client, and will shave one or two days off the trial allowing the jury to focus on the client’s defenses.

Colt B. Dodrill

Dodrill and Vance Put Brakes on Wrongful Death Action Against Car-Sharing Platform

Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Jenna Vance (Associate-Phoenix, AZ) prevailed on summary judgment in Maricopa County Superior Court in $4 million wrongful death suit against clients car sharing platform and vehicle owner. Following a fatal single-vehicle rollover accident, parents of a deceased passenger filed suit against our clients and driver claiming vicarious liability, negligent entrustment, and negligent maintenance of the vehicle. Colt successfully argued, as an issue of first impression, that Arizona’s car sharing statutes immunize platforms from vicarious liability. Colt also argued that the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment claim failed because the age of a licensed driver is not relevant, nor is the clients’ young driver surcharge an admission of the drivers’ incompetence. Colt refuted the plaintiffs’ speculative spoliation claims by reminding the court there was no suggestion of mechanical failure in the record, nor had the plaintiffs proffered an expert opinion. After taking the matter under advisement and reviewing the vehicle’s maintenance records, the court entered summary judgment in favor of our clients, finding driver error the sole cause of the accident, obviating the need for contentious client depositions, a costly trial, and extensive exposure.

Colt B. Dodrill

Dodrill and Carlston Kick Out Negligent Entrustment Claim Against Car-Sharing Platform

Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Jon Carlston (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) prevailed on summary judgment for a client car-sharing platform in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court. Through our client, a non-party vehicle owner agreed to share his vehicle with a co-defendant who let the defendant driver operate the vehicle, which later stuck the plaintiff’s vehicle. Colt and Jon argued that our client could not entrust a vehicle it, as a car-sharing program, did not control. Colt and Jon also argued that the law of negligent entrustment was not strict liability and did not extend to successive entrustments to unauthorized drivers. When the plaintiff argued Nevada’s car rental statutes required our client to insure the vehicle as to all operators, Jon pointed the court to Nevada’s new car-sharing statutes that except car-sharing programs from that rule. The court agreed and entered summary judgment in favor of our client, sparing them from burdensome discovery and substantial exposure for the plaintiff’s personal injuries.

Colt B. Dodrill and Jon J. Carlston

Dodrill and Young Set Aside Year-old Quarter-Million Default Judgment

Colt B. Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix) and Monique Young (Of Counsel-Phoenix) prevailed in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf of Wilson Elser’s carrier client’s insured driver. Colt and Monique successfully moved to intervene and set aside a year-old default judgment of more than a quarter-million dollars levied against the insured driver. The plaintiff’s counsel maintains that our carrier client was long aware of the plaintiff’s claim against its insured, who was duly served. Colt and Monique directed the court to the opposing counsel’s failure to notify the carrier of the suit, which, although not required for service, provides the equitable basis for the blindsided carrier to intervene and set aside the default judgment. Colt and Monique successfully argued the distinction between a carrier’s notice of claim and notice of suit, defeating the plaintiff’s untimeliness argument by emphasizing that our client was not notified of the suit until nine months after the default judgment was entered. Relying on the public policy favoring settlement, Colt and Monique convinced the court that settlement discussions between notice of the suit and the motion filing did not constitute undue delay. They also maintained that the reported absence of contact between the insured’s vehicle and the plaintiff’s vehicle and the comparative fault of settling non-parties in the multi-vehicle accident not alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint provides a meritorious defense warranting setting the default aside. The court agreed and set aside the default judgment, saving the client substantial post-judgment interest and allowing it to defend the insured driver and negotiate a favorable resolution under the facts related to the accident, which were not presented in the plaintiff’s application for default judgment.

Colt B. Dodrill

Dodrill and Carlston Obtain Dismissal Under New Peer-to-Peer Car-Sharing Statutes

Colt B. Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Jon Carlston (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) prevailed on a motion to dismiss in Nevada state court in a negligent entrustment action against Wilson Elser’s clients, a peer-to-peer car-sharing program and the shared vehicle’s owners. The plaintiff’s luxury tour bus suffered extensive property damage after a hit-and-run accident with the shared vehicle. Although it was unclear whether an authorized driver or car thief was behind the wheel, Colt and Jon argued that common law does not recognize successive entrustments. In an issue of first impression, Colt successfully navigated Nevada’s recently enacted car-sharing statutes to convince the court that the clients need not investigate whether a license displayed by the authorized driver was valid. Colt also convinced the court that the client’s insurance required by the new statutes was not the plaintiff’s ticket to impose vicarious liability. Colt also argued that joint and several liability under the old car rental statutes took a backseat to the new peer-to-peer car-sharing statutes. In addition, Colt argued that amending the complaint and allowing discovery would be futile. The court agreed and dismissed all claims against the client. This decision saved the client from significant exposure, burdensome discovery, and substantial costs and legal fees.

Colt B. Dodrill and Jon J. Carlston

Dodrill and Vance Muzzle Dog Attack Suit against Apartment Client

Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix, AZ) and Jenna Vance (Associate-Phoenix, AZ) obtained summary judgment for client apartment in dog attack case in Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa. The plaintiff sued a tenant and our client for personal injuries sustained when the tenant’s Pit Bull leapt out of their apartment to attack him. The plaintiff claimed our client breached its non-delegable duty to keep inherently vicious animals off its premises. Jenna’s discovery confirmed the tenant’s dog was an emotional support animal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Colt and Jenna moved for summary judgment, arguing the Federal Fair Housing Act barred our client from discriminating against the plaintiff, preempting the plaintiff’s state law negligence claims against our client. Colt and Jenna also argued as an issue of first impression that new Arizona statutes render no breed of dog per se vicious. Unable to reasonably oppose it, the plaintiff rolled over, allowing Colt and Jenna’s motion to be granted as unopposed.

Colt B. Dodrill

Dodrill and Foster Convince Nevada Court to Adopt McHaffie Rule to Void Redundant Claims Against Trucking Client

Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Las Vegas) and Shirley Foster (Associate-Las Vegas) obtained partial summary judgment of a plaintiff’s negligent hiring, training and supervision claims against our client trucking company. The plaintiff alleged both direct and vicarious liability claims against our client for reptile purposes, including propounding burdensome and harassing discovery into the client’s business records and seeking adverse inferences for any missing documents. In an issue of first impression in Nevada, the trial judge found the Nevada Supreme Court would adopt the McHaffie rule, which renders direct liability claims redundant when the defendant admits the driver was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident. The judge initially denied Colt’s motion by carving out an exception for punitive damages cases. On reconsideration, Colt convinced the court there were no facts supporting a punitive damages claim and maintenance records were not relevant absent a negligent maintenance claim. 

Colt B. Dodrill

Del Gatto, Dodrill and Vance Secure Summary Judgment on No Duty of Care

Brian Del Gatto (Partner-Phoenix), Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Phoenix) and Jenna Vance (Associate-Phoenix) obtained summary judgment in Maricopa County Superior Court for Wilson Elser’s clients, a peer-to-peer car sharing program and a shared vehicle’s owner. The plaintiff sought damages from our clients under the theory of negligent entrustment. Colt and Jenna established that of the co-defendants mother and daughter, only the mother was authorized to operate the shared vehicle, whereas her daughter who was operating it at the time of the accident, was not authorized to do so. The plaintiff argued that the mother’s prior return of a shared vehicle with a “weed smell” imposed on our clients a duty to remove her from client’s program and the breach of that duty caused the accident. Colt and Jenna successfully argued no causal link existed between the mother’s purported marijuana use and the daughter’s accident. Finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiff, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the peer-to-peer car-sharing program. Finding no proximate cause, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the shared vehicle’s owner.

Brian Del Gatto and Colt B. Dodrill

Bashor and Dodrill Achieve Summary Judgment for Client in Staged Accident Case

 ​Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment in favor a petroleum transportation company in Clark County District Court. The plaintiffs alleged the client's tractor-trailer negligently rear-ended their vehicle, causing significant bodily injuries and totaling the vehicle. Suspecting this was a staged accident, Karen and Colt propounded extensive discovery, including requests to admit the accident was staged. Their investigation revealed that a witness had been a defendant in a separate action filed by the same plaintiffs' counsel regarding a similar accident that occurred just a half hour before. That witness's deposition testimony confirmed the first accident was staged by the same individuals in the same vehicles involved in the client's accident. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs' counsel withdrew, and Karen and Colt moved for summary judgment based on the witness's testimony, accident photographs, the client's statement and the plaintiffs' failure to respond to discovery. The plaintiffs elected not to oppose the motion, which the court granted, finding that by staging the accident, the plaintiffs consented to and assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law.

Karen L. Bashor and Colt B. Dodrill

Bashor and Dodrill Achieve Summary Judgment for Client in Staged Accident Case

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment in favor a petroleum transportation company in Clark County District Court. The plaintiffs alleged the client’s tractor-trailer negligently rear-ended their vehicle, causing significant bodily injuries and totaling the vehicle. Suspecting this was a staged accident, Karen and Colt propounded extensive discovery, including requests to admit the accident was staged. Their investigation revealed that a witness had been a defendant in a separate action filed by the same plaintiffs’ counsel regarding a similar accident that occurred just a half hour before. That witness’s deposition testimony confirmed the first accident was staged by the same individuals in the same vehicles involved in the client’s accident. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew, and Karen and Colt moved for summary judgment based on the witness’s testimony, accident photographs, the client’s statement and the plaintiffs’ failure to respond to discovery. The plaintiffs elected not to oppose the motion, which the court granted, finding that by staging the accident, the plaintiffs consented to and assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law.

Karen L. Bashor and Colt B. Dodrill

Events

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage loan servicer and against subsequent purchaser on issue of first impression that a homeowner’s association foreclosure of a delinquent assessment lien held in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void under state law. Successfully argued appeal before Nevada Supreme Court resulting in published decision. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage lender in plaintiffs’ fraud, breach of contract and negligence claims for receiving a three-year adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) instead of alleged promised seven-year ARM by establishing plaintiffs had no legally cognizable damages because their interest rate decreased. Successfully defended plaintiffs’ appeal, including oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Obtained dismissal of borrower’s amended complaint by establishing that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) in effect prior to Dodd-Frank Amendments did not require the loan servicer to disclose the owner of the note. Affirmed on appeal by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Successfully defended appeal to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of summary judgment holding that mortgage loan servicer owed the plaintiff no obligation to modify her loan. 

Obtained judgment as a matter of law in favor of a casino at the close of plaintiff’s case-in-chief in a catastrophic personal injury trial by establishing that the casino employee’s alleged conduct was not in the course and scope of their employment. Plaintiff had alleged in amended pleadings that post-injury treatment resulted in her quadriplegia. By successfully trifurcating the trial into liability, damages and punitive damages stages, prevented the jury from ever receiving evidence of plaintiff’s alleged injuries. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of governmental entity in flood case by establishing that downstream landowner was not third-party beneficiary of county’s indemnity agreement with upstream landowner. Affirmed on appeal. 

Obtained partial summary judgment on a punitive damages claim against parents of a child alleged to have shot another child with a pebble from a slingshot. 

Obtained dismissal of a property owner’s claim against a title insurance carrier following an alleged forged conveyance to the carrier’s insured. 

Obtained summary judgment in favor of mortgage servicer and government-sponsored enterprise against borrower who claimed new mortgage servicer did not hold the note. Summary judgment included counterclaim for judicial foreclosure against borrower. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained favorable settlement at mediation in plaintiff’s negligence, strict liability and premises liability claims against gun show promoter following accidental shooting. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained court-approved settlement in wrongful death claims against apartment owner following alleged heat stroke due to purportedly inoperable air conditioner. 

Successfully negotiated and obtained favorable settlement at judicial settlement conference in wrongful death claim against commercial driver by establishing that decedent bicyclist was at least comparatively negligent by riding through intersection in bicycle lane to the right of right-turning vehicles. 

Successfully issued DMCA takedown request causing webhosting service to remove competitor’s website infringing on client’s intellectual property. 

Firm Highlights

Client Wins
Hurwitz, Trembach, and Lubin Secure Complete Dismissal for Global REIT in Wrongful Death Toxic Exposure Action
Daniel S. Hurwitz (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Anatolii Trembach (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), and Rory L. Lubin (Partner-White Plains, NY) obtained a complete victory in the Superior Court of California on behalf of Wilson Elser's client, a global real estate investment trust. The plaintiffs in this case sued our client, the alleged landlord of an industrial property where the decedent had worked, along with other defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the decedent's death was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at a facility operated by the client’s tenant, asserting wrongful death, strict product liability, and survival causes of action. Dan and Anatolii prevailed on two successive demurrers, persuading the court that the claims against the client were barred by the statute of limitations and that the relation-back doctrine under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 did not apply. The court agreed and dismissed the action against the client. When the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, we filed another brief demonstrating that the motion presented no new facts, circumstances, or law warranting reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. After reviewing our brief, the plaintiffs waved the white flag and withdrew the motion in its entirety, resulting in complete and final dismissal of the action at the pleadings stage and sparing the client the costs and risks associated with the discovery process. The case against the remaining defendants continues.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Endler Win Summary Judgment for Insurer – Defeating Coverage Claim
Michael Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Jesse Endler (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) secured summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, for Wilson Elser’s insurance company client. The insured, a medical practice, brought a first-party claim alleging our client wrongfully denied coverage for a loss. The loss involved a backup and overflow of water and sewage into the lower level of the practice’s office building, caused by rocks crushing the exterior sewer line. The insured claimed that the language in the policy’s one exclusion was ambiguous and thus should be construed to cover the loss. Our client contended that the various definitions found in several policy exclusions barred coverage under the policy’s terms. In support of their motion for summary judgment, Michael and Jesse relied in part on a federal case from Florida interpreting identical policy language. In that case, the court found the policy language clear and unambiguous and, under similar facts, held that the policy did not cover the loss. In its written opinion, the Pennsylvania court stated that it found the Florida case persuasive and insightful and held that the policy was unambiguous, granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims against the client.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Announces 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Recipient
New York, NY — National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the recipient of the 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship, named for the firm’s Chair Emeritus, a founding member of the firm.  This year’s recipient is Amaya Lester, daughter of Weinstock St Fleur, IT Regional Supervisor for the firm’s New York office. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or upon graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university. “We are pleased to continue the firm’s scholarship in honor of Thomas W. Wilson Sr. for the 2026–2027 year,” said Danial McMahon, the firm’s chairman. “Amaya truly embodies the values that the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship was established to honor. We are delighted to recognize her exceptional achievements and commitment to making a positive impact in her community. It is my pleasure to congratulate Weinstock, Amaya, and their family.” Amaya is a senior at Mercer County Technical Schools Health Sciences Academy in Trenton, New Jersey. She is a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society and has dedicated four years to her school's swim team while remaining actively involved in various school clubs. Deeply committed to community service, Amaya volunteers through her school's Red Cross Chapter and serves as a Student Ambassador at Mercer County Technical Schools. She is also a member of Glamour Girls, a group that visits nursing homes to build meaningful connections with elderly individuals, and she regularly volunteers at her church. Demonstrating both initiative and leadership, Amaya founded the Green Paws: Veterinary and Environmental Club at her school, inspiring her peers to make a meaningful impact on animal welfare and environmental stewardship. This initiative reflects her passion for these causes – interests she will continue to pursue as she begins her studies in Veterinary Science at Rowan University this fall. About the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program In 2010, the firm's partnership established the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program to support the college education of selected award recipients who are children of current, full-time Wilson Elser employees. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university.
Read more
Events
First Party Claims: Effectively Dealing with and Using Claims Consultants
Peter Moore (Partner-McLean, VA) and Kirsten Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “First Party Claims: Effectively Dealing with and Using Claims Consultants” on May 7, 2026. This presentation will provide an overview of good first-party claims handling, and drill down on when to retain, and how to effectively use independent adjusters, engineers, meteorologists, and other experts and consultants to investigate claims and push back on questionable ones. The presenters will also discuss the effective use of the appraisal process and provide practical examples from real claims in which consultants played a significant role in their resolution, along with lessons gleaned from those cases.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
News
Motta Elected Vice Chair of ADR Section of Kentucky Bar Association
Denise M. Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) was elected as Vice Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Kentucky Bar Association with a term beginning June 31, 2026, and continuing through 2028. Denise is currently the Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for DRI, is a Panel Member for the American Arbitration Association (Construction and Commercial), and regularly serves as a mediator and arbitrator.
Read more
Events
AI-Powered Legal Research & Writing, Communications Dos and Don’ts, Organizational Tips, and Evidence Foundations
Isaac Netzer (Associate-New York, NY) will present multiple sessions at the National Business Institute’s live CLE program, New York Bridge the Gap: Skills and Ethics for Real-World Practice, in Long Island, New York, on May 6, 2026. Isaac’s session, “AI-Powered Legal Research and Writing,” discusses AI’s practical use in identifying and assessing legal authorities, extracting key information from court opinions, searching docket filings, and best practices for protecting and redacting sensitive content. The “Communications Do's and Don'ts for Legal Professionals” session covers client onboarding, managing client expectations, navigating generational differences in communication, and effective communication with supervising attorneys, peers, and legal staff. “Organization Tips and Tricks: Save Time, Boost Productivity” offers strategies for organization and productivity, including time management, delegation, and workflow optimization. Lastly, Isaac’s “Evidence Foundations” session examines document integrity, metadata, AI-generated evidence, and the requirements attorneys must satisfy when documents are challenged in litigation.
Read more
Publications
DOJ Reschedules Medical Marijuana: Implications for Insurance Coverage, Capacity, and Compliance
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult-use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, all of which add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. The FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products.  The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now, FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well-capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal/state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing of rescheduling and rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up.  The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines.  This article was published in the April 28, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.
Read more
Events
Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language
Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY), Stephanie Reda (Partner-White Plains, NY), and Martin Ween (Senior Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language on May 5, 2026. This presentation will focus on the importance of carefully drafting insurance policies, endorsements, and applications to avoid legal disputes regarding meaning and interpretation. The session will highlight key themes of coverage disputes over policy interpretation and ambiguous words and phrases. The presenters will share caselaw examples and address how counsel can assist in limiting the risks of coverage disputes.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Announces 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Recipient
New York, NY — National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the recipient of the 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship, named for the firm’s Chair Emeritus, a founding member of the firm.  This year’s recipient is Amaya Lester, daughter of Weinstock St Fleur, IT Regional Supervisor for the firm’s New York office. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or upon graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university. “We are pleased to continue the firm’s scholarship in honor of Thomas W. Wilson Sr. for the 2026–2027 year,” said Danial McMahon, the firm’s chairman. “Amaya truly embodies the values that the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship was established to honor. We are delighted to recognize her exceptional achievements and commitment to making a positive impact in her community. It is my pleasure to congratulate Weinstock, Amaya, and their family.” Amaya is a senior at Mercer County Technical Schools Health Sciences Academy in Trenton, New Jersey. She is a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society and has dedicated four years to her school's swim team while remaining actively involved in various school clubs. Deeply committed to community service, Amaya volunteers through her school's Red Cross Chapter and serves as a Student Ambassador at Mercer County Technical Schools. She is also a member of Glamour Girls, a group that visits nursing homes to build meaningful connections with elderly individuals, and she regularly volunteers at her church. Demonstrating both initiative and leadership, Amaya founded the Green Paws: Veterinary and Environmental Club at her school, inspiring her peers to make a meaningful impact on animal welfare and environmental stewardship. This initiative reflects her passion for these causes – interests she will continue to pursue as she begins her studies in Veterinary Science at Rowan University this fall. About the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program In 2010, the firm's partnership established the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program to support the college education of selected award recipients who are children of current, full-time Wilson Elser employees. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Endler Win Summary Judgment for Insurer – Defeating Coverage Claim
Michael Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Jesse Endler (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) secured summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, for Wilson Elser’s insurance company client. The insured, a medical practice, brought a first-party claim alleging our client wrongfully denied coverage for a loss. The loss involved a backup and overflow of water and sewage into the lower level of the practice’s office building, caused by rocks crushing the exterior sewer line. The insured claimed that the language in the policy’s one exclusion was ambiguous and thus should be construed to cover the loss. Our client contended that the various definitions found in several policy exclusions barred coverage under the policy’s terms. In support of their motion for summary judgment, Michael and Jesse relied in part on a federal case from Florida interpreting identical policy language. In that case, the court found the policy language clear and unambiguous and, under similar facts, held that the policy did not cover the loss. In its written opinion, the Pennsylvania court stated that it found the Florida case persuasive and insightful and held that the policy was unambiguous, granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims against the client.
Read more
Client Wins
Hurwitz, Trembach, and Lubin Secure Complete Dismissal for Global REIT in Wrongful Death Toxic Exposure Action
Daniel S. Hurwitz (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Anatolii Trembach (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), and Rory L. Lubin (Partner-White Plains, NY) obtained a complete victory in the Superior Court of California on behalf of Wilson Elser's client, a global real estate investment trust. The plaintiffs in this case sued our client, the alleged landlord of an industrial property where the decedent had worked, along with other defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the decedent's death was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at a facility operated by the client’s tenant, asserting wrongful death, strict product liability, and survival causes of action. Dan and Anatolii prevailed on two successive demurrers, persuading the court that the claims against the client were barred by the statute of limitations and that the relation-back doctrine under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 did not apply. The court agreed and dismissed the action against the client. When the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, we filed another brief demonstrating that the motion presented no new facts, circumstances, or law warranting reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. After reviewing our brief, the plaintiffs waved the white flag and withdrew the motion in its entirety, resulting in complete and final dismissal of the action at the pleadings stage and sparing the client the costs and risks associated with the discovery process. The case against the remaining defendants continues.
Read more
Events
First Party Claims: Effectively Dealing with and Using Claims Consultants
Peter Moore (Partner-McLean, VA) and Kirsten Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “First Party Claims: Effectively Dealing with and Using Claims Consultants” on May 7, 2026. This presentation will provide an overview of good first-party claims handling, and drill down on when to retain, and how to effectively use independent adjusters, engineers, meteorologists, and other experts and consultants to investigate claims and push back on questionable ones. The presenters will also discuss the effective use of the appraisal process and provide practical examples from real claims in which consultants played a significant role in their resolution, along with lessons gleaned from those cases.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
Read more
News
Motta Elected Vice Chair of ADR Section of Kentucky Bar Association
Denise M. Motta (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) was elected as Vice Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Kentucky Bar Association with a term beginning June 31, 2026, and continuing through 2028. Denise is currently the Chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for DRI, is a Panel Member for the American Arbitration Association (Construction and Commercial), and regularly serves as a mediator and arbitrator.
Read more
Events
AI-Powered Legal Research & Writing, Communications Dos and Don’ts, Organizational Tips, and Evidence Foundations
Isaac Netzer (Associate-New York, NY) will present multiple sessions at the National Business Institute’s live CLE program, New York Bridge the Gap: Skills and Ethics for Real-World Practice, in Long Island, New York, on May 6, 2026. Isaac’s session, “AI-Powered Legal Research and Writing,” discusses AI’s practical use in identifying and assessing legal authorities, extracting key information from court opinions, searching docket filings, and best practices for protecting and redacting sensitive content. The “Communications Do's and Don'ts for Legal Professionals” session covers client onboarding, managing client expectations, navigating generational differences in communication, and effective communication with supervising attorneys, peers, and legal staff. “Organization Tips and Tricks: Save Time, Boost Productivity” offers strategies for organization and productivity, including time management, delegation, and workflow optimization. Lastly, Isaac’s “Evidence Foundations” session examines document integrity, metadata, AI-generated evidence, and the requirements attorneys must satisfy when documents are challenged in litigation.
Read more
Publications
DOJ Reschedules Medical Marijuana: Implications for Insurance Coverage, Capacity, and Compliance
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult-use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, all of which add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. The FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products.  The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now, FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well-capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal/state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing of rescheduling and rulemaking for adult-use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up.  The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines.  This article was published in the April 28, 2026, posting of Insurance Journal.
Read more
Events
Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language
Jonathan Meer (Partner-New York, NY), Stephanie Reda (Partner-White Plains, NY), and Martin Ween (Senior Counsel-New York, NY) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Words Matter: How and Why Insurers Face Issues with Policy and Application Language on May 5, 2026. This presentation will focus on the importance of carefully drafting insurance policies, endorsements, and applications to avoid legal disputes regarding meaning and interpretation. The session will highlight key themes of coverage disputes over policy interpretation and ambiguous words and phrases. The presenters will share caselaw examples and address how counsel can assist in limiting the risks of coverage disputes.
Read more
News
Wilson Elser Announces 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Recipient
New York, NY — National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the recipient of the 2026–2027 Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship, named for the firm’s Chair Emeritus, a founding member of the firm.  This year’s recipient is Amaya Lester, daughter of Weinstock St Fleur, IT Regional Supervisor for the firm’s New York office. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or upon graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university. “We are pleased to continue the firm’s scholarship in honor of Thomas W. Wilson Sr. for the 2026–2027 year,” said Danial McMahon, the firm’s chairman. “Amaya truly embodies the values that the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship was established to honor. We are delighted to recognize her exceptional achievements and commitment to making a positive impact in her community. It is my pleasure to congratulate Weinstock, Amaya, and their family.” Amaya is a senior at Mercer County Technical Schools Health Sciences Academy in Trenton, New Jersey. She is a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society and has dedicated four years to her school's swim team while remaining actively involved in various school clubs. Deeply committed to community service, Amaya volunteers through her school's Red Cross Chapter and serves as a Student Ambassador at Mercer County Technical Schools. She is also a member of Glamour Girls, a group that visits nursing homes to build meaningful connections with elderly individuals, and she regularly volunteers at her church. Demonstrating both initiative and leadership, Amaya founded the Green Paws: Veterinary and Environmental Club at her school, inspiring her peers to make a meaningful impact on animal welfare and environmental stewardship. This initiative reflects her passion for these causes – interests she will continue to pursue as she begins her studies in Veterinary Science at Rowan University this fall. About the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program In 2010, the firm's partnership established the Thomas W. Wilson Sr. Scholarship Program to support the college education of selected award recipients who are children of current, full-time Wilson Elser employees. The scholarship consists of $10,000 per year for up to four years or graduation, whichever occurs first, at an accredited college or university.
Read more
Client Wins
Takacs and Endler Win Summary Judgment for Insurer – Defeating Coverage Claim
Michael Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Jesse Endler (Of Counsel-Philadelphia, PA) secured summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, for Wilson Elser’s insurance company client. The insured, a medical practice, brought a first-party claim alleging our client wrongfully denied coverage for a loss. The loss involved a backup and overflow of water and sewage into the lower level of the practice’s office building, caused by rocks crushing the exterior sewer line. The insured claimed that the language in the policy’s one exclusion was ambiguous and thus should be construed to cover the loss. Our client contended that the various definitions found in several policy exclusions barred coverage under the policy’s terms. In support of their motion for summary judgment, Michael and Jesse relied in part on a federal case from Florida interpreting identical policy language. In that case, the court found the policy language clear and unambiguous and, under similar facts, held that the policy did not cover the loss. In its written opinion, the Pennsylvania court stated that it found the Florida case persuasive and insightful and held that the policy was unambiguous, granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims against the client.
Read more
Client Wins
Hurwitz, Trembach, and Lubin Secure Complete Dismissal for Global REIT in Wrongful Death Toxic Exposure Action
Daniel S. Hurwitz (Partner-Los Angeles, CA), Anatolii Trembach (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), and Rory L. Lubin (Partner-White Plains, NY) obtained a complete victory in the Superior Court of California on behalf of Wilson Elser's client, a global real estate investment trust. The plaintiffs in this case sued our client, the alleged landlord of an industrial property where the decedent had worked, along with other defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the decedent's death was caused by exposure to toxic chemicals at a facility operated by the client’s tenant, asserting wrongful death, strict product liability, and survival causes of action. Dan and Anatolii prevailed on two successive demurrers, persuading the court that the claims against the client were barred by the statute of limitations and that the relation-back doctrine under Code of Civil Procedure § 474 did not apply. The court agreed and dismissed the action against the client. When the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, we filed another brief demonstrating that the motion presented no new facts, circumstances, or law warranting reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008. After reviewing our brief, the plaintiffs waved the white flag and withdrew the motion in its entirety, resulting in complete and final dismissal of the action at the pleadings stage and sparing the client the costs and risks associated with the discovery process. The case against the remaining defendants continues.
Read more
Events
First Party Claims: Effectively Dealing with and Using Claims Consultants
Peter Moore (Partner-McLean, VA) and Kirsten Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “First Party Claims: Effectively Dealing with and Using Claims Consultants” on May 7, 2026. This presentation will provide an overview of good first-party claims handling, and drill down on when to retain, and how to effectively use independent adjusters, engineers, meteorologists, and other experts and consultants to investigate claims and push back on questionable ones. The presenters will also discuss the effective use of the appraisal process and provide practical examples from real claims in which consultants played a significant role in their resolution, along with lessons gleaned from those cases.
Read more
Publications
New York’s AVOID Act Imposes 90-Day Deadline for Third-Party Claims
The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)
Read more
Publications
Westlaw Today Features Fink Article on Shifting Landscape of Internet Liability & Safe Harbor Protections
Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”
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