Sunny Rehsi (Of Counsel-Detroit, MI) coauthored “Ontario’s 15-Year Ultimate Limitation Period Bars Old Product Liability Lawsuits,” appearing in the September 2026 edition of DRI’s publication For the Defense. The article examines how Ontario’s 15-year ultimate limitation period can bar product liability claims involving older products, even where an injury occurs recently and the plaintiff sues within the ordinary two-year discoverability period. The authors explain that recent Ontario decisions, including Huether v. Sharpe and Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc., clarify that a plaintiff cannot avoid the limitation period simply by characterizing an alleged failure to warn or other duty as “continuing”; there must be “successive or repeated actionable conduct” by the defendant. Referring to Hennebury, Sunny highlights the ruling’s significance for U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and insurers, noting that “the key limitation question is not simply when the plaintiff was injured or when the claim was discovered,” but when the underlying act or omission occurred. For product defendants, the practical lesson is to investigate the chronology of design, manufacture, distribution, warnings, recalls, and post-sale conduct at the outset of an Ontario claim and assess whether the 15-year ultimate limitation period provides a basis for an early dispositive motion.

Michael Duffy (Partner-Chicago, IL) was recently honored with the prestigious Bishop Quarter Award, presented by the Archdiocese of Chicago at a ceremony presided over by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago. The Award is presented annually to a layperson in each vicariate who demonstrates a consistent commitment to serving the Archdiocese's ministries, and Mike is one of only six laypersons to receive it across all of Chicago. Mike’s selection reflects a longstanding commitment to serving others that extends well beyond his professional responsibilities. His involvement with nonprofit organizations dedicated to improving the lives of others echoes the same spirit of service and leadership he brings to his legal practice. Whether advocating for clients in or out of the courtroom, Mike approaches each matter by understanding his clients’ circumstances, goals, and objectives and pursuing solutions tailored to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them. In this respect, the qualities recognized by the Bishop Quarter Award ‒ service, leadership, and a sustained commitment to others ‒ are also hallmarks of Mike’s approach to the practice of law.

Q: Are employees entitled by law to access their personnel files?   A: There is no federal law that gives private-sector employees the right to view their personnel files. Access is regulated entirely by state-specific laws. There are currently 19 states that legally require employers to permit employees (and sometimes former employees) to view and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file. As of November 8, 2026, that number will increase to 20, when New York’s recently enacted Personnel Records Access Law goes into effect. The majority of states have no law requiring access to personnel files and there is no federal law that confers on current or former employees a statutory right to access their personnel files.  As of October of 2026, the following states provide right of access to current employees: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virgina, Washington, and Wisconsin.  Some states, including New York (as of November 8, 2026), also allow former employees to view their personnel files. Each state has its own caveats to access. For example, Washington allows for a former employee to retain the right of rebuttal or correction for up to two years following their separation from employment.  New York’s new law, Senate Bill 2025-S3460, was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 9, 2026, adding Section 210-b to the New York Labor Law. The law covers public and private sector employers, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, labor organizations, unincorporated associations, other legal businesses and employer agents.  Employers operating in New York should familiarize themselves with the requirements of Section 210-b now, before it goes into effect, and update their document-management and onboarding practices accordingly, as non-compliance may expose them to claims under the New York Labor Law.  What Will New York Law Require? The law in New York will require employers to provide current and former employees with a copy of their personnel records within five (5) business days of a written request, up to twice per calendar year, at no cost to the employee. Employers also must notify employees within ten business (10) days after placing information in a personnel record that is, has been, or may be used to negatively affect the employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or the possibility of disciplinary action. If there is a disagreement with any information within the personnel record, removal or correction of the information may be mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee. If the employee doesn’t agree with the information the employer places in the file, the employee can submit a written statement explaining the employee’s position, which must become a part of the employee’s personnel record and must accompany the disputed information when it is transmitted to a third party, so long as the original information remains in the file. Employers are not required to permit an employee to review their personnel record more than twice per calendar year, but a notification and review resulting from the placement of negative information in the record does not count toward that limit. Under the new law, to the extent employers create personnel records, without deletions or expungement of information, they are required to maintain them from the date of employment through three years after termination of the employee’s employment. What Types of Documents Are Covered Under New York’s Personnel Records Law? The New York law expressly defines “personnel records” to include the following written information and documents prepared by an employer regarding an employee, for inclusion in the employee’s personnel record: Name, address, date of birth, job title and description  Rate of pay and any other compensation paid to the employee Starting date of employment  The job application of the employee  Resumes or other forms of employment inquiry submitted by the employee to the employer in response to the employer's advertisement  All employee performance evaluations, including but not limited to employee evaluation documents  Written warnings of substandard performance  Lists of probationary periods  Waivers signed by the employee Copies of dated termination notices  Any documents relating to disciplinary action regarding the employee The law applies broadly and is not limited to the above-listed documentation. Examples of documents also likely covered include: 1. Employment agreements and offer letters signed at the start of the employment relationship 2. Handbook and policy acknowledgment forms, such as sign-offs on anti-harassment policies, code of conduct agreements, or confidentiality acknowledgments 3. Performance improvement plans that the employee is asked to sign to confirm receipt 4. Separation-related documents, such as resignation acknowledgments or exit interview forms, to the extent they are placed in the personnel file Note that the law expressly excludes, “information of a personal nature about a person other than the employee if disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of such other person’s privacy.” The law prohibits employers and other persons from discharging, threatening, penalizing, discriminating, or retaliating against employees who exercise their statutory rights.  Practical Tips for New York Employers New York employers should keep several practical points in mind as they prepare to comply with Section 210-b of the Labor Law: 1. Review current practices and protocols. Before November 8, 2026, New York employers should review their personnel record practices and retention procedures. Employers should establish a protocol for tracking and responding to an employee’s request for the employee’s personnel file. Determine whether your organization already provides employees with copies of all signed personnel documents. Employers also should evaluate whether covered personnel records maintained by third-party providers can be produced within five business days.  2. Update onboarding and HR workflows. Ensure that standard operating procedures require HR personnel and managers to provide a copy of every signed document to the employee at the time of signing. Consider building this step into electronic onboarding platforms and document management systems so that copy delivery is automatic rather than dependent on individual compliance to ensure timely compliance with the notification requirements. 3. Leverage electronic signature and document management tools. Employers using e-signature platforms can configure them to send a completed copy of each signed document to the employee automatically, which streamlines compliance and creates a reliable audit trail. 4. Train HR staff and supervisors. Managers and HR professionals who handle personnel paperwork should be informed of the new requirement and understand that every signed document placed in a personnel file must be accompanied by delivery of a copy to the employee. Employers should train HR personnel and managers on the law’s access, notice, retention, and anti-retaliation requirements. 5. Document delivery of copies. Maintain a record confirming that each signed document was provided to the employee. Whether through an electronic system's automatic confirmation, an email transmittal, or a signed acknowledgment of receipt, this documentation can be important if compliance is later questioned. What Are the Risks of Non-Compliance? For companies that violate the law, New York’s Attorney General would be empowered to seek penalties ranging from $500 to $2,500 per violation, and workers who face discrimination or retaliation for asserting their rights would have a private right of action. Broader Considerations New York's enactment of Section 210-b is part of a broader trend of states strengthening employee access to workplace records. For instance, California employers must allow current and former employees to inspect and receive copies of personnel records relating to the employee’s performance or any grievance concerning the employee. In addition, California employers must also provide education and training records upon the employee’s authorized request within a 30-day window. In contrast, employers in the state of Texas are not required to turn over personnel files to current or former employees. Employers operating in multiple jurisdictions should be aware that personnel-file access laws vary significantly from state to state. 

Kirsten L. Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) and Jane E. Young (Partner-Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Handling UM/UIM Claims with Confidence: Coverage, Investigation, and Resolution Best Practices” on October 20, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of best practices for adjusting uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims. Topics include confirming coverage applicability, verifying the insured's status as a covered person, establishing the liability of the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor, and evaluating damages. The session also covers stacking and offset issues, as well as how UM/UIM obligations interact with policy limits, exhaustion requirements, and inter-company arbitration. Also addressed are common coverage triggers, consent-to-settle provisions, subrogation rights, and jurisdiction-specific variations that adjusters should be aware of when handling these claims. Whether you are new to UM/UIM or looking to sharpen your approach, this session will equip you with practical strategies for handling claims efficiently, accurately, and in compliance with applicable regulations and fair claims practices standards.

Jonathan E. Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Thomas M. Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Different Policies, Different Views: Dynamics of Negotiating Among Insurance Towers” on October 13, 2026. Various factors can impact an insurer’s position during settlement discussions. Insurer positions and strategies can become more complicated when several insurers and towers of insurers are involved. Primary and excess insurers act independently, and excess insurers are free to make differing assessments of liability and coverage, including assessments that differ from those of other excess insurers. This presentation addresses some of the policy language interpretation that can impact such negotiations, as well as negotiation dynamics and strategies for navigating differing insurer views and bringing insurers together toward an ultimate resolution of the underlying claim.

Richard W. Boone, Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Michael J. O’Malley (Partner-Chicago, IL) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Drafting Sound Coverage Position Letters to Avoid Waiver and Estoppel” on October 15, 2026. The presentation provides practical guidance for drafting clear, effective insurance coverage letters. It addresses how to identify and analyze relevant policy provisions, communicate coverage positions clearly, and draft reservation-of-rights and denial letters that preserve the insurer’s defenses while providing the insured with a meaningful explanation of the coverage determination. The webinar also highlights common drafting pitfalls, strategic considerations, and best practices for creating coverage correspondence that is both legally sound and useful to claims professionals, insureds, and counsel.

Christopher J. Correia (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), Filomena Meyer (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a demurrer filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, securing dismissal of claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a public transportation entity. The plaintiff, who allegedly fell at the entity’s transportation depot and sustained serious injuries, asserted causes of action for nuisance, loss of consortium, and several government tort liabilities. The plaintiff’s complaint surreptitiously avoided mentioning that he was an employee of the public entity and that the alleged fall occurred at his worksite. Christopher’s investigation uncovered a pending workers’ compensation claim arising from the incident. Because that claim placed the plaintiff’s lawsuit squarely within the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine, Wilson Elser filed a demurrer seeking dismissal. Filomena prepared the moving papers, motions, and reply briefs, and the court granted the firm’s request for judicial notice of the workers’ compensation claim. After oral argument, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action.

Mary Butler (Partner-Seattle, WA) is the 2026 recipient of the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers (WDTL) Community Service Award, presented annually to a defense lawyer in recognition of outstanding contributions to the community. The WDTL will present the award at its Judicial Reception on October 27, 2026, at the Washington Athletic Club in Seattle. Mary is being recognized for her work on the Governor's tort reform committee, which was asked to examine Washington's process for handling personal injury tort claims against the state and its political subdivisions, review other states’ practices, and develop recommendations to improve Washington’s current system.

David Glazer (Partner-New York, NY) and Christian Balodis (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “When Is Work ‘Work’? Dibrino, Calix and the Narrowing of Contractual Indemnity,” published as a preview by the New York State Bar Association on October 6, 2026. The article examines how two recent New York decisions ‒ Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. and Calix v. Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York ‒ have narrowed when broadly worded contractual indemnification provisions are triggered. The authors examine how the decisions shift the focus from an injured worker’s general connection to a project, including employment, site presence, or equipment ownership, to whether the specific condition that caused the injury arose from the proposed indemnitor’s actual contractual work. The decisions bring the First Department in line with the stricter approach previously applied in the Second and Third Departments, with significant implications for litigation strategy, discovery, settlement negotiations, and drafting of indemnification provisions. David and Christian explain that these case results are particularly significant for practitioners in the First Department, where courts previously took a broader approach to contractual indemnity. They also discuss how the decisions will change the way indemnity disputes are analyzed going forward, requiring closer attention to the specific condition that caused the injury and which contractor’s work produced it, pointing out that “Indemnity disputes that were once resolved by pointing to the proposed indemnitor’s project involvement will now turn on the granular question of which contractor’s work produced the specific condition that caused the injury.”

Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) and Matthew Lee (Partner-McLean, VA) secured dismissal of all claims asserted against Wilson Elser’s client, a title and settlement services company, in D.C. Superior Court. The case arose from the sale of a five-unit apartment building in the District. The purchaser of the property filed a third-party complaint against the client, alleging that the title company had facilitated the sale without sufficiently handling the applicable TOPA issues. The third-party complaint asserted seven claims, including breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, waste, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and recoupment. The third-party plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages against the firm’s client. Perry and Matt moved to dismiss the third-party complaint in its entirety under Civil Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(6), and 14. Specifically, they argued that the third-party complaint was procedurally improper under Rule 14, as the third-party claims were not derivative of the causes of action asserted in the underlying complaint. They also argued that each count independently failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Finally, they argued that the third-party plaintiff’s request for punitive damages should be dismissed because it failed to sufficiently plead that the firm’s client acted with actual malice or an evil motive. In a detailed 13-page order, the court agreed with each of Wilson Elser’s 12(b)(6) arguments, granted the motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint against the client in its entirety.

Q: Are employees entitled by law to access their personnel files?   A: There is no federal law that gives private-sector employees the right to view their personnel files. Access is regulated entirely by state-specific laws. There are currently 19 states that legally require employers to permit employees (and sometimes former employees) to view and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file. As of November 8, 2026, that number will increase to 20, when New York’s recently enacted Personnel Records Access Law goes into effect. The majority of states have no law requiring access to personnel files and there is no federal law that confers on current or former employees a statutory right to access their personnel files.  As of October of 2026, the following states provide right of access to current employees: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virgina, Washington, and Wisconsin.  Some states, including New York (as of November 8, 2026), also allow former employees to view their personnel files. Each state has its own caveats to access. For example, Washington allows for a former employee to retain the right of rebuttal or correction for up to two years following their separation from employment.  New York’s new law, Senate Bill 2025-S3460, was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 9, 2026, adding Section 210-b to the New York Labor Law. The law covers public and private sector employers, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, labor organizations, unincorporated associations, other legal businesses and employer agents.  Employers operating in New York should familiarize themselves with the requirements of Section 210-b now, before it goes into effect, and update their document-management and onboarding practices accordingly, as non-compliance may expose them to claims under the New York Labor Law.  What Will New York Law Require? The law in New York will require employers to provide current and former employees with a copy of their personnel records within five (5) business days of a written request, up to twice per calendar year, at no cost to the employee. Employers also must notify employees within ten business (10) days after placing information in a personnel record that is, has been, or may be used to negatively affect the employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or the possibility of disciplinary action. If there is a disagreement with any information within the personnel record, removal or correction of the information may be mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee. If the employee doesn’t agree with the information the employer places in the file, the employee can submit a written statement explaining the employee’s position, which must become a part of the employee’s personnel record and must accompany the disputed information when it is transmitted to a third party, so long as the original information remains in the file. Employers are not required to permit an employee to review their personnel record more than twice per calendar year, but a notification and review resulting from the placement of negative information in the record does not count toward that limit. Under the new law, to the extent employers create personnel records, without deletions or expungement of information, they are required to maintain them from the date of employment through three years after termination of the employee’s employment. What Types of Documents Are Covered Under New York’s Personnel Records Law? The New York law expressly defines “personnel records” to include the following written information and documents prepared by an employer regarding an employee, for inclusion in the employee’s personnel record: Name, address, date of birth, job title and description  Rate of pay and any other compensation paid to the employee Starting date of employment  The job application of the employee  Resumes or other forms of employment inquiry submitted by the employee to the employer in response to the employer's advertisement  All employee performance evaluations, including but not limited to employee evaluation documents  Written warnings of substandard performance  Lists of probationary periods  Waivers signed by the employee Copies of dated termination notices  Any documents relating to disciplinary action regarding the employee The law applies broadly and is not limited to the above-listed documentation. Examples of documents also likely covered include: 1. Employment agreements and offer letters signed at the start of the employment relationship 2. Handbook and policy acknowledgment forms, such as sign-offs on anti-harassment policies, code of conduct agreements, or confidentiality acknowledgments 3. Performance improvement plans that the employee is asked to sign to confirm receipt 4. Separation-related documents, such as resignation acknowledgments or exit interview forms, to the extent they are placed in the personnel file Note that the law expressly excludes, “information of a personal nature about a person other than the employee if disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of such other person’s privacy.” The law prohibits employers and other persons from discharging, threatening, penalizing, discriminating, or retaliating against employees who exercise their statutory rights.  Practical Tips for New York Employers New York employers should keep several practical points in mind as they prepare to comply with Section 210-b of the Labor Law: 1. Review current practices and protocols. Before November 8, 2026, New York employers should review their personnel record practices and retention procedures. Employers should establish a protocol for tracking and responding to an employee’s request for the employee’s personnel file. Determine whether your organization already provides employees with copies of all signed personnel documents. Employers also should evaluate whether covered personnel records maintained by third-party providers can be produced within five business days.  2. Update onboarding and HR workflows. Ensure that standard operating procedures require HR personnel and managers to provide a copy of every signed document to the employee at the time of signing. Consider building this step into electronic onboarding platforms and document management systems so that copy delivery is automatic rather than dependent on individual compliance to ensure timely compliance with the notification requirements. 3. Leverage electronic signature and document management tools. Employers using e-signature platforms can configure them to send a completed copy of each signed document to the employee automatically, which streamlines compliance and creates a reliable audit trail. 4. Train HR staff and supervisors. Managers and HR professionals who handle personnel paperwork should be informed of the new requirement and understand that every signed document placed in a personnel file must be accompanied by delivery of a copy to the employee. Employers should train HR personnel and managers on the law’s access, notice, retention, and anti-retaliation requirements. 5. Document delivery of copies. Maintain a record confirming that each signed document was provided to the employee. Whether through an electronic system's automatic confirmation, an email transmittal, or a signed acknowledgment of receipt, this documentation can be important if compliance is later questioned. What Are the Risks of Non-Compliance? For companies that violate the law, New York’s Attorney General would be empowered to seek penalties ranging from $500 to $2,500 per violation, and workers who face discrimination or retaliation for asserting their rights would have a private right of action. Broader Considerations New York's enactment of Section 210-b is part of a broader trend of states strengthening employee access to workplace records. For instance, California employers must allow current and former employees to inspect and receive copies of personnel records relating to the employee’s performance or any grievance concerning the employee. In addition, California employers must also provide education and training records upon the employee’s authorized request within a 30-day window. In contrast, employers in the state of Texas are not required to turn over personnel files to current or former employees. Employers operating in multiple jurisdictions should be aware that personnel-file access laws vary significantly from state to state. 

Michael Duffy (Partner-Chicago, IL) was recently honored with the prestigious Bishop Quarter Award, presented by the Archdiocese of Chicago at a ceremony presided over by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago. The Award is presented annually to a layperson in each vicariate who demonstrates a consistent commitment to serving the Archdiocese's ministries, and Mike is one of only six laypersons to receive it across all of Chicago. Mike’s selection reflects a longstanding commitment to serving others that extends well beyond his professional responsibilities. His involvement with nonprofit organizations dedicated to improving the lives of others echoes the same spirit of service and leadership he brings to his legal practice. Whether advocating for clients in or out of the courtroom, Mike approaches each matter by understanding his clients’ circumstances, goals, and objectives and pursuing solutions tailored to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them. In this respect, the qualities recognized by the Bishop Quarter Award ‒ service, leadership, and a sustained commitment to others ‒ are also hallmarks of Mike’s approach to the practice of law.

Sunny Rehsi (Of Counsel-Detroit, MI) coauthored “Ontario’s 15-Year Ultimate Limitation Period Bars Old Product Liability Lawsuits,” appearing in the September 2026 edition of DRI’s publication For the Defense. The article examines how Ontario’s 15-year ultimate limitation period can bar product liability claims involving older products, even where an injury occurs recently and the plaintiff sues within the ordinary two-year discoverability period. The authors explain that recent Ontario decisions, including Huether v. Sharpe and Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc., clarify that a plaintiff cannot avoid the limitation period simply by characterizing an alleged failure to warn or other duty as “continuing”; there must be “successive or repeated actionable conduct” by the defendant. Referring to Hennebury, Sunny highlights the ruling’s significance for U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and insurers, noting that “the key limitation question is not simply when the plaintiff was injured or when the claim was discovered,” but when the underlying act or omission occurred. For product defendants, the practical lesson is to investigate the chronology of design, manufacture, distribution, warnings, recalls, and post-sale conduct at the outset of an Ontario claim and assess whether the 15-year ultimate limitation period provides a basis for an early dispositive motion.

Kirsten L. Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) and Jane E. Young (Partner-Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Handling UM/UIM Claims with Confidence: Coverage, Investigation, and Resolution Best Practices” on October 20, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of best practices for adjusting uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims. Topics include confirming coverage applicability, verifying the insured's status as a covered person, establishing the liability of the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor, and evaluating damages. The session also covers stacking and offset issues, as well as how UM/UIM obligations interact with policy limits, exhaustion requirements, and inter-company arbitration. Also addressed are common coverage triggers, consent-to-settle provisions, subrogation rights, and jurisdiction-specific variations that adjusters should be aware of when handling these claims. Whether you are new to UM/UIM or looking to sharpen your approach, this session will equip you with practical strategies for handling claims efficiently, accurately, and in compliance with applicable regulations and fair claims practices standards.

Jonathan E. Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Thomas M. Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Different Policies, Different Views: Dynamics of Negotiating Among Insurance Towers” on October 13, 2026. Various factors can impact an insurer’s position during settlement discussions. Insurer positions and strategies can become more complicated when several insurers and towers of insurers are involved. Primary and excess insurers act independently, and excess insurers are free to make differing assessments of liability and coverage, including assessments that differ from those of other excess insurers. This presentation addresses some of the policy language interpretation that can impact such negotiations, as well as negotiation dynamics and strategies for navigating differing insurer views and bringing insurers together toward an ultimate resolution of the underlying claim.

Richard W. Boone, Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Michael J. O’Malley (Partner-Chicago, IL) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Drafting Sound Coverage Position Letters to Avoid Waiver and Estoppel” on October 15, 2026. The presentation provides practical guidance for drafting clear, effective insurance coverage letters. It addresses how to identify and analyze relevant policy provisions, communicate coverage positions clearly, and draft reservation-of-rights and denial letters that preserve the insurer’s defenses while providing the insured with a meaningful explanation of the coverage determination. The webinar also highlights common drafting pitfalls, strategic considerations, and best practices for creating coverage correspondence that is both legally sound and useful to claims professionals, insureds, and counsel.

Christopher J. Correia (Associate-Los Angeles, CA), Filomena Meyer (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA), and Victor M. Campos (Of Counsel-Los Angeles, CA) prevailed on a demurrer filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, securing dismissal of claims against Wilson Elser’s client, a public transportation entity. The plaintiff, who allegedly fell at the entity’s transportation depot and sustained serious injuries, asserted causes of action for nuisance, loss of consortium, and several government tort liabilities. The plaintiff’s complaint surreptitiously avoided mentioning that he was an employee of the public entity and that the alleged fall occurred at his worksite. Christopher’s investigation uncovered a pending workers’ compensation claim arising from the incident. Because that claim placed the plaintiff’s lawsuit squarely within the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine, Wilson Elser filed a demurrer seeking dismissal. Filomena prepared the moving papers, motions, and reply briefs, and the court granted the firm’s request for judicial notice of the workers’ compensation claim. After oral argument, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the action.

Mary Butler (Partner-Seattle, WA) is the 2026 recipient of the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers (WDTL) Community Service Award, presented annually to a defense lawyer in recognition of outstanding contributions to the community. The WDTL will present the award at its Judicial Reception on October 27, 2026, at the Washington Athletic Club in Seattle. Mary is being recognized for her work on the Governor's tort reform committee, which was asked to examine Washington's process for handling personal injury tort claims against the state and its political subdivisions, review other states’ practices, and develop recommendations to improve Washington’s current system.

David Glazer (Partner-New York, NY) and Christian Balodis (Associate-New York, NY) coauthored the article “When Is Work ‘Work’? Dibrino, Calix and the Narrowing of Contractual Indemnity,” published as a preview by the New York State Bar Association on October 6, 2026. The article examines how two recent New York decisions ‒ Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. and Calix v. Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York ‒ have narrowed when broadly worded contractual indemnification provisions are triggered. The authors examine how the decisions shift the focus from an injured worker’s general connection to a project, including employment, site presence, or equipment ownership, to whether the specific condition that caused the injury arose from the proposed indemnitor’s actual contractual work. The decisions bring the First Department in line with the stricter approach previously applied in the Second and Third Departments, with significant implications for litigation strategy, discovery, settlement negotiations, and drafting of indemnification provisions. David and Christian explain that these case results are particularly significant for practitioners in the First Department, where courts previously took a broader approach to contractual indemnity. They also discuss how the decisions will change the way indemnity disputes are analyzed going forward, requiring closer attention to the specific condition that caused the injury and which contractor’s work produced it, pointing out that “Indemnity disputes that were once resolved by pointing to the proposed indemnitor’s project involvement will now turn on the granular question of which contractor’s work produced the specific condition that caused the injury.”

Pernell Choren (Of Counsel-Washington, DC) and Matthew Lee (Partner-McLean, VA) secured dismissal of all claims asserted against Wilson Elser’s client, a title and settlement services company, in D.C. Superior Court. The case arose from the sale of a five-unit apartment building in the District. The purchaser of the property filed a third-party complaint against the client, alleging that the title company had facilitated the sale without sufficiently handling the applicable TOPA issues. The third-party complaint asserted seven claims, including breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, waste, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and recoupment. The third-party plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages against the firm’s client. Perry and Matt moved to dismiss the third-party complaint in its entirety under Civil Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(6), and 14. Specifically, they argued that the third-party complaint was procedurally improper under Rule 14, as the third-party claims were not derivative of the causes of action asserted in the underlying complaint. They also argued that each count independently failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Finally, they argued that the third-party plaintiff’s request for punitive damages should be dismissed because it failed to sufficiently plead that the firm’s client acted with actual malice or an evil motive. In a detailed 13-page order, the court agreed with each of Wilson Elser’s 12(b)(6) arguments, granted the motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint against the client in its entirety.

Q: Are employees entitled by law to access their personnel files?   A: There is no federal law that gives private-sector employees the right to view their personnel files. Access is regulated entirely by state-specific laws. There are currently 19 states that legally require employers to permit employees (and sometimes former employees) to view and/or obtain a copy of their personnel file. As of November 8, 2026, that number will increase to 20, when New York’s recently enacted Personnel Records Access Law goes into effect. The majority of states have no law requiring access to personnel files and there is no federal law that confers on current or former employees a statutory right to access their personnel files.  As of October of 2026, the following states provide right of access to current employees: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virgina, Washington, and Wisconsin.  Some states, including New York (as of November 8, 2026), also allow former employees to view their personnel files. Each state has its own caveats to access. For example, Washington allows for a former employee to retain the right of rebuttal or correction for up to two years following their separation from employment.  New York’s new law, Senate Bill 2025-S3460, was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 9, 2026, adding Section 210-b to the New York Labor Law. The law covers public and private sector employers, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, labor organizations, unincorporated associations, other legal businesses and employer agents.  Employers operating in New York should familiarize themselves with the requirements of Section 210-b now, before it goes into effect, and update their document-management and onboarding practices accordingly, as non-compliance may expose them to claims under the New York Labor Law.  What Will New York Law Require? The law in New York will require employers to provide current and former employees with a copy of their personnel records within five (5) business days of a written request, up to twice per calendar year, at no cost to the employee. Employers also must notify employees within ten business (10) days after placing information in a personnel record that is, has been, or may be used to negatively affect the employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, or the possibility of disciplinary action. If there is a disagreement with any information within the personnel record, removal or correction of the information may be mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee. If the employee doesn’t agree with the information the employer places in the file, the employee can submit a written statement explaining the employee’s position, which must become a part of the employee’s personnel record and must accompany the disputed information when it is transmitted to a third party, so long as the original information remains in the file. Employers are not required to permit an employee to review their personnel record more than twice per calendar year, but a notification and review resulting from the placement of negative information in the record does not count toward that limit. Under the new law, to the extent employers create personnel records, without deletions or expungement of information, they are required to maintain them from the date of employment through three years after termination of the employee’s employment. What Types of Documents Are Covered Under New York’s Personnel Records Law? The New York law expressly defines “personnel records” to include the following written information and documents prepared by an employer regarding an employee, for inclusion in the employee’s personnel record: Name, address, date of birth, job title and description  Rate of pay and any other compensation paid to the employee Starting date of employment  The job application of the employee  Resumes or other forms of employment inquiry submitted by the employee to the employer in response to the employer's advertisement  All employee performance evaluations, including but not limited to employee evaluation documents  Written warnings of substandard performance  Lists of probationary periods  Waivers signed by the employee Copies of dated termination notices  Any documents relating to disciplinary action regarding the employee The law applies broadly and is not limited to the above-listed documentation. Examples of documents also likely covered include: 1. Employment agreements and offer letters signed at the start of the employment relationship 2. Handbook and policy acknowledgment forms, such as sign-offs on anti-harassment policies, code of conduct agreements, or confidentiality acknowledgments 3. Performance improvement plans that the employee is asked to sign to confirm receipt 4. Separation-related documents, such as resignation acknowledgments or exit interview forms, to the extent they are placed in the personnel file Note that the law expressly excludes, “information of a personal nature about a person other than the employee if disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of such other person’s privacy.” The law prohibits employers and other persons from discharging, threatening, penalizing, discriminating, or retaliating against employees who exercise their statutory rights.  Practical Tips for New York Employers New York employers should keep several practical points in mind as they prepare to comply with Section 210-b of the Labor Law: 1. Review current practices and protocols. Before November 8, 2026, New York employers should review their personnel record practices and retention procedures. Employers should establish a protocol for tracking and responding to an employee’s request for the employee’s personnel file. Determine whether your organization already provides employees with copies of all signed personnel documents. Employers also should evaluate whether covered personnel records maintained by third-party providers can be produced within five business days.  2. Update onboarding and HR workflows. Ensure that standard operating procedures require HR personnel and managers to provide a copy of every signed document to the employee at the time of signing. Consider building this step into electronic onboarding platforms and document management systems so that copy delivery is automatic rather than dependent on individual compliance to ensure timely compliance with the notification requirements. 3. Leverage electronic signature and document management tools. Employers using e-signature platforms can configure them to send a completed copy of each signed document to the employee automatically, which streamlines compliance and creates a reliable audit trail. 4. Train HR staff and supervisors. Managers and HR professionals who handle personnel paperwork should be informed of the new requirement and understand that every signed document placed in a personnel file must be accompanied by delivery of a copy to the employee. Employers should train HR personnel and managers on the law’s access, notice, retention, and anti-retaliation requirements. 5. Document delivery of copies. Maintain a record confirming that each signed document was provided to the employee. Whether through an electronic system's automatic confirmation, an email transmittal, or a signed acknowledgment of receipt, this documentation can be important if compliance is later questioned. What Are the Risks of Non-Compliance? For companies that violate the law, New York’s Attorney General would be empowered to seek penalties ranging from $500 to $2,500 per violation, and workers who face discrimination or retaliation for asserting their rights would have a private right of action. Broader Considerations New York's enactment of Section 210-b is part of a broader trend of states strengthening employee access to workplace records. For instance, California employers must allow current and former employees to inspect and receive copies of personnel records relating to the employee’s performance or any grievance concerning the employee. In addition, California employers must also provide education and training records upon the employee’s authorized request within a 30-day window. In contrast, employers in the state of Texas are not required to turn over personnel files to current or former employees. Employers operating in multiple jurisdictions should be aware that personnel-file access laws vary significantly from state to state. 

Michael Duffy (Partner-Chicago, IL) was recently honored with the prestigious Bishop Quarter Award, presented by the Archdiocese of Chicago at a ceremony presided over by Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago. The Award is presented annually to a layperson in each vicariate who demonstrates a consistent commitment to serving the Archdiocese's ministries, and Mike is one of only six laypersons to receive it across all of Chicago. Mike’s selection reflects a longstanding commitment to serving others that extends well beyond his professional responsibilities. His involvement with nonprofit organizations dedicated to improving the lives of others echoes the same spirit of service and leadership he brings to his legal practice. Whether advocating for clients in or out of the courtroom, Mike approaches each matter by understanding his clients’ circumstances, goals, and objectives and pursuing solutions tailored to achieve the outcomes that matter most to them. In this respect, the qualities recognized by the Bishop Quarter Award ‒ service, leadership, and a sustained commitment to others ‒ are also hallmarks of Mike’s approach to the practice of law.

Sunny Rehsi (Of Counsel-Detroit, MI) coauthored “Ontario’s 15-Year Ultimate Limitation Period Bars Old Product Liability Lawsuits,” appearing in the September 2026 edition of DRI’s publication For the Defense. The article examines how Ontario’s 15-year ultimate limitation period can bar product liability claims involving older products, even where an injury occurs recently and the plaintiff sues within the ordinary two-year discoverability period. The authors explain that recent Ontario decisions, including Huether v. Sharpe and Hennebury v. Makita Canada Inc., clarify that a plaintiff cannot avoid the limitation period simply by characterizing an alleged failure to warn or other duty as “continuing”; there must be “successive or repeated actionable conduct” by the defendant. Referring to Hennebury, Sunny highlights the ruling’s significance for U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and insurers, noting that “the key limitation question is not simply when the plaintiff was injured or when the claim was discovered,” but when the underlying act or omission occurred. For product defendants, the practical lesson is to investigate the chronology of design, manufacture, distribution, warnings, recalls, and post-sale conduct at the outset of an Ontario claim and assess whether the 15-year ultimate limitation period provides a basis for an early dispositive motion.

Kirsten L. Curtis (Partner-Portland, OR) and Jane E. Young (Partner-Denver, CO) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Handling UM/UIM Claims with Confidence: Coverage, Investigation, and Resolution Best Practices” on October 20, 2026. This session provides a comprehensive overview of best practices for adjusting uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims. Topics include confirming coverage applicability, verifying the insured's status as a covered person, establishing the liability of the uninsured or underinsured tortfeasor, and evaluating damages. The session also covers stacking and offset issues, as well as how UM/UIM obligations interact with policy limits, exhaustion requirements, and inter-company arbitration. Also addressed are common coverage triggers, consent-to-settle provisions, subrogation rights, and jurisdiction-specific variations that adjusters should be aware of when handling these claims. Whether you are new to UM/UIM or looking to sharpen your approach, this session will equip you with practical strategies for handling claims efficiently, accurately, and in compliance with applicable regulations and fair claims practices standards.

Jonathan E. Meer (Partner-New York, NY) and Thomas M. Spitaletto (Partner-Dallas, TX) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Different Policies, Different Views: Dynamics of Negotiating Among Insurance Towers” on October 13, 2026. Various factors can impact an insurer’s position during settlement discussions. Insurer positions and strategies can become more complicated when several insurers and towers of insurers are involved. Primary and excess insurers act independently, and excess insurers are free to make differing assessments of liability and coverage, including assessments that differ from those of other excess insurers. This presentation addresses some of the policy language interpretation that can impact such negotiations, as well as negotiation dynamics and strategies for navigating differing insurer views and bringing insurers together toward an ultimate resolution of the underlying claim.

Richard W. Boone, Jr. (Partner-New York, NY) and Michael J. O’Malley (Partner-Chicago, IL) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “Drafting Sound Coverage Position Letters to Avoid Waiver and Estoppel” on October 15, 2026. The presentation provides practical guidance for drafting clear, effective insurance coverage letters. It addresses how to identify and analyze relevant policy provisions, communicate coverage positions clearly, and draft reservation-of-rights and denial letters that preserve the insurer’s defenses while providing the insured with a meaningful explanation of the coverage determination. The webinar also highlights common drafting pitfalls, strategic considerations, and best practices for creating coverage correspondence that is both legally sound and useful to claims professionals, insureds, and counsel.