ACCOUNTANTS
Accounting Malpractice Trials
Florida Department of Financial Services v. Spear, Safer, Harmon & Co., et al., 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, 2011. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising from the liquidation of a statewide medical malpractice self-insurance trust brought against the trust’s auditors. Plaintiff claimed $11 million in damages, and the lowest settlement demand before the verdict was $5 million. In a compromise verdict, plaintiff was awarded $150,000 (less than 1.5% of the claimed damages) against the auditors after apportionments of fault to the state both in its capacity as successor-in-interest and as the regulator of the trust, and against the actuary for the trust.

Malmsteen v. Berdon, LLP, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2008. Accounting malpractice jury trial by a musician against accounting firm acting as business manager alleging firm failed to properly track incoming royalties allowing the personal manager to divert and steal the royalties. Plaintiff alleged $3 million in damages. Jury awarded $450,000, which was substantially less than any settlement demand presented before or during trial.

Brian Weiss, DDS, P.C. v. Harold Zoref, CPA, P.C., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2008. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising out of alleged failure to identify employee defalcations by office manager of dentistry practice. Case settled after jury selection and opening statements for an amount below any prior demand and very close to the amounts offered prior to trial.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Schultheis & Pannettieri, LLP, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2007. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising out of alleged failure to identify employee defalcations by staff accountant in the administrative office of several labor union fringe benefit funds brought as a subrogated claim by the funds’ fidelity insurer. Case settled during plaintiff’s case after the Judge remarked that the plaintiff’s primary witness had become the best defense witness she had ever seen during cross-examination. Settlement amount was very close to the amounts offered prior to trial.

Gertler v. Sol Masch & Co., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2006. Accounting malpractice bench trial arising from failure to advise cardiologist sponsor of self-directed pension plan that trading securities in the pension account on margin would result in unrelated business income tax. Directed verdict in favor of defense affirmed on appeal.

Shared Communications Services, Inc. v. Goldenberg, Rosenthal, LLP, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2003. Accounting malpractice bench trial arising from bad ending to a contentious relationship with a litigious client. The court was presented with multiple malpractice and fraud claims, as well as counterclaims for unpaid professional fees. The court rejected several of plaintiff’s claims, but awarded damages on two theories. The court also awarded professional fees on the counterclaims. The net judgment in favor of plaintiff was far less than any prior settlement demand, significantly less than the last settlement offer, and well below what the carrier was prepared to pay if plaintiff ever presented a reasonable demand.

Courtland Group Inc. v. Phillips Gold & Company, LLP, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, 2003. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising from undetected breaches of fiduciary duty by founder of REIT through a series of undisclosed self-dealing transactions with the REIT. Defense verdict affirmed on appeal.

Lakeville Pace Mechanical, Inc. v. Elmar Realty Corp., et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, 2001. Accounting malpractice jury trial by three separate plaintiff groups alleging they agreed to restart a failing construction project based on financial projections and other information provided by accounting firm brought in by owners to restart the project. Defense verdict.

Non-Malpractice Matters of Interest to Accountants
AAA arbitration to determine whether departed accounting firm partner breached post-employment restrictive covenants. Three-day arbitration focused on solicitation of clients and former colleagues at the claimant’s firm.

Numerous injunctive proceedings in state and federal court relating to alleged breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants. Represented many firms and CPAs seeking and opposing injunctions.

AAA arbitration to determine whether retired accounting firm partner breached fiduciary duties to firm and partnership agreement by concealing malpractice until after retirement. Five-day arbitration focused on facts surrounding malpractice, what was known prior to retirement by engagement partner, and provisions in partnership agreement permitting firm to surcharge partner for costs incurred defending malpractice that was curable at the time of retirement.

New York State Department of Education, Professional Ethics Panel (PEP) Hearing. Successfully restored CPA license to CPA who had surrendered license years earlier based on a jury trial felony conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Opening statements, sworn witness testimony, introduction of documentary evidence and closing arguments to 3-member PEP panel. The Board of Regents restored the CPA license without restriction, requiring only enhanced continuing education based on the record at the PEP hearing.

Internal Revenue Service Private Letter Ruling. Successfully reversed disastrous tax election intended to save certain annual taxes, but actually costing the taxpayer nearly $800,000 in the year of election tax based on a deemed stock transfer resulting from the election. The tax advice was indefensible, so the successful private letter ruling saved the firm from certain exposure.

New York State Sales Tax Conciliation Conference. In connection with an accounting malpractice claim that an accountant mishandled a sale tax examination, successfully reduced the amount the plaintiff owed New York State through a conciliation conference with the state taxing authorities. The reduced sales tax liability allowed for a favorable settlement prior to trial.

Numerous AICPA, state licensing board and state CPA society ethics and disciplinary proceedings. Routinely handle responses to initial inquiry letters, including successfully achieving “no probably cause” findings, and thereafter handling matters through negotiated resolutions or hearings when necessary.

Counsel and represent firms and CPA in connection with SEC and PCAOB investigations. Numerous representations including “white paper” and Wells submissions

Representative Matters

ACCOUNTANTS
Accounting Malpractice Trials
Florida Department of Financial Services v. Spear, Safer, Harmon & Co., et al., 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, 2011. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising from the liquidation of a statewide medical malpractice self-insurance trust brought against the trust’s auditors. Plaintiff claimed $11 million in damages, and the lowest settlement demand before the verdict was $5 million. In a compromise verdict, plaintiff was awarded $150,000 (less than 1.5% of the claimed damages) against the auditors after apportionments of fault to the state both in its capacity as successor-in-interest and as the regulator of the trust, and against the actuary for the trust.

Malmsteen v. Berdon, LLP, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2008. Accounting malpractice jury trial by a musician against accounting firm acting as business manager alleging firm failed to properly track incoming royalties allowing the personal manager to divert and steal the royalties. Plaintiff alleged $3 million in damages. Jury awarded $450,000, which was substantially less than any settlement demand presented before or during trial.

Brian Weiss, DDS, P.C. v. Harold Zoref, CPA, P.C., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2008. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising out of alleged failure to identify employee defalcations by office manager of dentistry practice. Case settled after jury selection and opening statements for an amount below any prior demand and very close to the amounts offered prior to trial.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Schultheis & Pannettieri, LLP, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2007. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising out of alleged failure to identify employee defalcations by staff accountant in the administrative office of several labor union fringe benefit funds brought as a subrogated claim by the funds’ fidelity insurer. Case settled during plaintiff’s case after the Judge remarked that the plaintiff’s primary witness had become the best defense witness she had ever seen during cross-examination. Settlement amount was very close to the amounts offered prior to trial.

Gertler v. Sol Masch & Co., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2006. Accounting malpractice bench trial arising from failure to advise cardiologist sponsor of self-directed pension plan that trading securities in the pension account on margin would result in unrelated business income tax. Directed verdict in favor of defense affirmed on appeal.

Shared Communications Services, Inc. v. Goldenberg, Rosenthal, LLP, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2003. Accounting malpractice bench trial arising from bad ending to a contentious relationship with a litigious client. The court was presented with multiple malpractice and fraud claims, as well as counterclaims for unpaid professional fees. The court rejected several of plaintiff’s claims, but awarded damages on two theories. The court also awarded professional fees on the counterclaims. The net judgment in favor of plaintiff was far less than any prior settlement demand, significantly less than the last settlement offer, and well below what the carrier was prepared to pay if plaintiff ever presented a reasonable demand.

Courtland Group Inc. v. Phillips Gold & Company, LLP, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, 2003. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising from undetected breaches of fiduciary duty by founder of REIT through a series of undisclosed self-dealing transactions with the REIT. Defense verdict affirmed on appeal.

Lakeville Pace Mechanical, Inc. v. Elmar Realty Corp., et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, 2001. Accounting malpractice jury trial by three separate plaintiff groups alleging they agreed to restart a failing construction project based on financial projections and other information provided by accounting firm brought in by owners to restart the project. Defense verdict.

Non-Malpractice Matters of Interest to Accountants
AAA arbitration to determine whether departed accounting firm partner breached post-employment restrictive covenants. Three-day arbitration focused on solicitation of clients and former colleagues at the claimant’s firm.

Numerous injunctive proceedings in state and federal court relating to alleged breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants. Represented many firms and CPAs seeking and opposing injunctions.

AAA arbitration to determine whether retired accounting firm partner breached fiduciary duties to firm and partnership agreement by concealing malpractice until after retirement. Five-day arbitration focused on facts surrounding malpractice, what was known prior to retirement by engagement partner, and provisions in partnership agreement permitting firm to surcharge partner for costs incurred defending malpractice that was curable at the time of retirement.

New York State Department of Education, Professional Ethics Panel (PEP) Hearing. Successfully restored CPA license to CPA who had surrendered license years earlier based on a jury trial felony conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Opening statements, sworn witness testimony, introduction of documentary evidence and closing arguments to 3-member PEP panel. The Board of Regents restored the CPA license without restriction, requiring only enhanced continuing education based on the record at the PEP hearing.

Internal Revenue Service Private Letter Ruling. Successfully reversed disastrous tax election intended to save certain annual taxes, but actually costing the taxpayer nearly $800,000 in the year of election tax based on a deemed stock transfer resulting from the election. The tax advice was indefensible, so the successful private letter ruling saved the firm from certain exposure.

New York State Sales Tax Conciliation Conference. In connection with an accounting malpractice claim that an accountant mishandled a sale tax examination, successfully reduced the amount the plaintiff owed New York State through a conciliation conference with the state taxing authorities. The reduced sales tax liability allowed for a favorable settlement prior to trial.

Numerous AICPA, state licensing board and state CPA society ethics and disciplinary proceedings. Routinely handle responses to initial inquiry letters, including successfully achieving “no probably cause” findings, and thereafter handling matters through negotiated resolutions or hearings when necessary.

Counsel and represent firms and CPA in connection with SEC and PCAOB investigations. Numerous representations including “white paper” and Wells submissions

Events

ACCOUNTANTS
Accounting Malpractice Trials
Florida Department of Financial Services v. Spear, Safer, Harmon & Co., et al., 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, 2011. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising from the liquidation of a statewide medical malpractice self-insurance trust brought against the trust’s auditors. Plaintiff claimed $11 million in damages, and the lowest settlement demand before the verdict was $5 million. In a compromise verdict, plaintiff was awarded $150,000 (less than 1.5% of the claimed damages) against the auditors after apportionments of fault to the state both in its capacity as successor-in-interest and as the regulator of the trust, and against the actuary for the trust.

Malmsteen v. Berdon, LLP, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2008. Accounting malpractice jury trial by a musician against accounting firm acting as business manager alleging firm failed to properly track incoming royalties allowing the personal manager to divert and steal the royalties. Plaintiff alleged $3 million in damages. Jury awarded $450,000, which was substantially less than any settlement demand presented before or during trial.

Brian Weiss, DDS, P.C. v. Harold Zoref, CPA, P.C., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2008. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising out of alleged failure to identify employee defalcations by office manager of dentistry practice. Case settled after jury selection and opening statements for an amount below any prior demand and very close to the amounts offered prior to trial.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Schultheis & Pannettieri, LLP, Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2007. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising out of alleged failure to identify employee defalcations by staff accountant in the administrative office of several labor union fringe benefit funds brought as a subrogated claim by the funds’ fidelity insurer. Case settled during plaintiff’s case after the Judge remarked that the plaintiff’s primary witness had become the best defense witness she had ever seen during cross-examination. Settlement amount was very close to the amounts offered prior to trial.

Gertler v. Sol Masch & Co., Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, 2006. Accounting malpractice bench trial arising from failure to advise cardiologist sponsor of self-directed pension plan that trading securities in the pension account on margin would result in unrelated business income tax. Directed verdict in favor of defense affirmed on appeal.

Shared Communications Services, Inc. v. Goldenberg, Rosenthal, LLP, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2003. Accounting malpractice bench trial arising from bad ending to a contentious relationship with a litigious client. The court was presented with multiple malpractice and fraud claims, as well as counterclaims for unpaid professional fees. The court rejected several of plaintiff’s claims, but awarded damages on two theories. The court also awarded professional fees on the counterclaims. The net judgment in favor of plaintiff was far less than any prior settlement demand, significantly less than the last settlement offer, and well below what the carrier was prepared to pay if plaintiff ever presented a reasonable demand.

Courtland Group Inc. v. Phillips Gold & Company, LLP, 11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, 2003. Accounting malpractice jury trial arising from undetected breaches of fiduciary duty by founder of REIT through a series of undisclosed self-dealing transactions with the REIT. Defense verdict affirmed on appeal.

Lakeville Pace Mechanical, Inc. v. Elmar Realty Corp., et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, 2001. Accounting malpractice jury trial by three separate plaintiff groups alleging they agreed to restart a failing construction project based on financial projections and other information provided by accounting firm brought in by owners to restart the project. Defense verdict.

Non-Malpractice Matters of Interest to Accountants
AAA arbitration to determine whether departed accounting firm partner breached post-employment restrictive covenants. Three-day arbitration focused on solicitation of clients and former colleagues at the claimant’s firm.

Numerous injunctive proceedings in state and federal court relating to alleged breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants. Represented many firms and CPAs seeking and opposing injunctions.

AAA arbitration to determine whether retired accounting firm partner breached fiduciary duties to firm and partnership agreement by concealing malpractice until after retirement. Five-day arbitration focused on facts surrounding malpractice, what was known prior to retirement by engagement partner, and provisions in partnership agreement permitting firm to surcharge partner for costs incurred defending malpractice that was curable at the time of retirement.

New York State Department of Education, Professional Ethics Panel (PEP) Hearing. Successfully restored CPA license to CPA who had surrendered license years earlier based on a jury trial felony conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Opening statements, sworn witness testimony, introduction of documentary evidence and closing arguments to 3-member PEP panel. The Board of Regents restored the CPA license without restriction, requiring only enhanced continuing education based on the record at the PEP hearing.

Internal Revenue Service Private Letter Ruling. Successfully reversed disastrous tax election intended to save certain annual taxes, but actually costing the taxpayer nearly $800,000 in the year of election tax based on a deemed stock transfer resulting from the election. The tax advice was indefensible, so the successful private letter ruling saved the firm from certain exposure.

New York State Sales Tax Conciliation Conference. In connection with an accounting malpractice claim that an accountant mishandled a sale tax examination, successfully reduced the amount the plaintiff owed New York State through a conciliation conference with the state taxing authorities. The reduced sales tax liability allowed for a favorable settlement prior to trial.

Numerous AICPA, state licensing board and state CPA society ethics and disciplinary proceedings. Routinely handle responses to initial inquiry letters, including successfully achieving “no probably cause” findings, and thereafter handling matters through negotiated resolutions or hearings when necessary.

Counsel and represent firms and CPA in connection with SEC and PCAOB investigations. Numerous representations including “white paper” and Wells submissions

Representative Matters

Benford & Larkin Obtain Summary Judgment on $3.2 Million Accounting Malpractice Claim

John Benford (Partner-Orlando, FL) and Peter Larkin (Partner-White Plains, NY) obtained summary judgment in an accounting malpractice case pending in state court in Orlando, Florida, where the plaintiff was seeking $3.2 million in damages (including prejudgment interest). The case involved two accounting firms (including a national firm) and one of their CPAs in an accounting malpractice lawsuit brought by a Florida-based petroleum company. The plaintiff alleged that the CPA had colluded with its former CEO to increase the CEO’s bonus by using a formula that deviated from the formula contained in the CEO’s employment agreement, and which the plaintiff’s board of directors never approved. The plaintiff claimed that the CPA’s use of the alternate formula caused the CEO to be overpaid a total of approximately $1.2 million in unauthorized bonus compensation. The company also claimed approximately $2 million in prejudgment interest relating to the alleged overpayments. Through targeted deposition testimony, John and Peter demonstrated that several members of the plaintiff’s management were aware of the CPA’s use of the alternate bonus formula and, therefore, the plaintiff petroleum company had institutional knowledge that the CPA was using the different formula. 

John Y. Benford and Peter J. Larkin

Gavel with calculator and spreadsheet

Larkin and Gelozin Successfully Represent Accounting Firm in Informal PCAOB Inquiry

White Plains, New York, partners Peter Larkin and Rebecca Gelozin represented an accounting firm client regarding an informal inquiry from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's Division of Enforcement and Investigations. After providing extensive documents and information, our client was notified by the PCAOB that it has completed its informal inquiry and does not intend to recommend any enforcement action. PCAOB enforcement actions have increased in frequency and intensity in recent years, leading to many jaw-dropping fines being levied by the PCAOB, particularly when there are questions of compliance with the quality control standards. We avoided not only any mention of a fine by the PCAOB enforcement attorneys but also escalation from an informal to a formal investigation, not only keeping the firm out of harm’s way but also truncating what is often a very difficult process to navigate. 

Peter J. Larkin and Rebecca R. Gelozin

Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action on Behalf of Radiology Facility and Archival Imaging System

Geoffrey A. Belzer (Partner-Chicago), Anjali C. Das (Partner-Chicago), Peter J. Larkin (Partner-White Plains) and Jennifer S. Stegmaier (Of Counsel-Chicago) obtained a data breach class action dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a radiology facility and archival imaging system that contained protected health information. About a year and a half after receiving notice of a breach, two patients filed a complaint against the firm’s client and its IT service provider for failing to implement adequate cybersecurity measures, alleging multiple unauthorized individuals had accessed their information. Geoffrey, Anjali, Peter and Jennifer prevailed on their motion to dismiss when the court held that allegations of increased risk of future harm alone is not a cognizable injury. The court also rejected each of the plaintiffs' additional theories of injury based on time and money spent on theft and fraud monitoring, “benefit of the bargain” injury, intrusion upon seclusion and statutory violations. Plaintiff’s counsel initially filed a purported class action designating another individual who was ultimately determined to never have been a patient of the radiology practice. Plaintiff’s counsel dismissed that action after the team moved for dismissal, and counsel then instituted the parallel suit involving these two plaintiffs and the motion to dismiss follows.

Geoffrey Belzer, Anjali C. Das, Peter J. Larkin and Jennifer S. Stegmaier

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
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
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
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
Felder Selected by California Bar as Content Validation Panelist
Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been selected by the State Bar of California to serve as a content validation panelist for the development and review of future California Bar Examination questions. This appointment reflects Otis’s extensive experience in legal education as an Adjunct Professor of Legal Writing at USC Gould School of Law, where his teaching and research focus on legal communication, pedagogy, and innovation, including the integration of AI-supported formative feedback in legal writing instruction and its impact on clarity, equity, and student learning outcomes. In this role with the bar, Otis will collaborate with assessment specialists and psychometricians to evaluate drafted multiple-choice and essay questions. The panel’s work ensures that examination content meets rigorous standards, including testing for minimum competence to practice law, maintaining clarity and cohesion, and eliminating bias. Panelists also assess whether essay prompts provide sufficient factual detail and appropriately target intended legal issues. Otis brings a distinctive combination of academic and regulatory leadership to the position. He previously served as both Commissioner and Commission Chair for the State Bar, where he played a key role in developing the certification examination for maritime law specialists. His work contributed to advancing professional standards and specialized competency within the legal field. Content validation panelists conduct independent review and collaborative sessions with others, assisting in the State Bar’s broader evaluation of the future structure of the California Bar Examination. Otis’ appointment underscores an ongoing commitment to ensuring that bar examination materials are not only psychometrically sound but also reflective of contemporary legal practice and pedagogy.
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
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
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
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
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
Felder Selected by California Bar as Content Validation Panelist
Otis Felder (Partner-Los Angeles, CA) has been selected by the State Bar of California to serve as a content validation panelist for the development and review of future California Bar Examination questions. This appointment reflects Otis’s extensive experience in legal education as an Adjunct Professor of Legal Writing at USC Gould School of Law, where his teaching and research focus on legal communication, pedagogy, and innovation, including the integration of AI-supported formative feedback in legal writing instruction and its impact on clarity, equity, and student learning outcomes. In this role with the bar, Otis will collaborate with assessment specialists and psychometricians to evaluate drafted multiple-choice and essay questions. The panel’s work ensures that examination content meets rigorous standards, including testing for minimum competence to practice law, maintaining clarity and cohesion, and eliminating bias. Panelists also assess whether essay prompts provide sufficient factual detail and appropriately target intended legal issues. Otis brings a distinctive combination of academic and regulatory leadership to the position. He previously served as both Commissioner and Commission Chair for the State Bar, where he played a key role in developing the certification examination for maritime law specialists. His work contributed to advancing professional standards and specialized competency within the legal field. Content validation panelists conduct independent review and collaborative sessions with others, assisting in the State Bar’s broader evaluation of the future structure of the California Bar Examination. Otis’ appointment underscores an ongoing commitment to ensuring that bar examination materials are not only psychometrically sound but also reflective of contemporary legal practice and pedagogy.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Privacy Settings