Newsletters
Cutting Deep: How Design Professionals Can Combat Widespread Federal Budget Cuts
Q2 2025 - Professionally Speaking Q2 2025
The continuing escalation of court filings, attorneys’ fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs, skyrocketing punitive damages and a litigious public fueled by media publicity have contributed to an increased focus on what frequently is referred to as “miscellaneous professional liability.” For 45 years, Wilson Elser has been providing sound and uncompromising counsel to clients in the business of advising those who are especially susceptible to this kind of risk.
Our clients include:
One of our most important roles is to educate businesses regarding their exposures to professional liability claims and protecting themselves from those claims through contractual indemnity agreements and liability insurance.
Practice attorneys represent individuals and institutions in these fields. We bring a mastery of the specialized state and federal laws that regulate professionals, knowledge of the practice standards imposed by their self-regulating industry and association boards, and experience in litigating simple and complex cases in state and federal courts, in arbitrations and in administrative hearings.
We handle significant malpractice claims arising from:
The continuing escalation of court filings, attorneys’ fee awards to prevailing plaintiffs, skyrocketing punitive damages and a litigious public fueled by media publicity have contributed to an increased focus on what frequently is referred to as “miscellaneous professional liability.” For 45 years, Wilson Elser has been providing sound and uncompromising counsel to clients in the business of advising those who are especially susceptible to this kind of risk.
Our clients include:
One of our most important roles is to educate businesses regarding their exposures to professional liability claims and protecting themselves from those claims through contractual indemnity agreements and liability insurance.
Practice attorneys represent individuals and institutions in these fields. We bring a mastery of the specialized state and federal laws that regulate professionals, knowledge of the practice standards imposed by their self-regulating industry and association boards, and experience in litigating simple and complex cases in state and federal courts, in arbitrations and in administrative hearings.
We handle significant malpractice claims arising from:
Wendy Testa (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Casie Salvadore (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) secured dismissal for a title agent client by prevailing on preliminary objections to the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The action, pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, involved a dispute arising from the sale of a Florida condominium and subsequent wire fraud of the condominium sale proceeds by a third party. Plaintiff / condominium owner was a trust formed in Pennsylvania. The only connection to Pennsylvania was the formation of the trust in this state. All other aspects were in Florida. Wendy and Casie successfully argued to the court that our client had no reasonable expectation to be sued in Pennsylvania due to a complete lack of contacts with the Commonwealth. The firm client, a Florida licensed title agent located and doing business in Florida only, was merely involved in the closing of a property located in Florida and had no relationship with or duty to the Pennsylvania trust / condominium owner. The court’s decision to grant preliminary objections for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing our Florida-based client underscores the importance of challenging jurisdictional overreach.
Wendy D. Testa and Casie A. Salvadore
Colleen Vellturo (Of Counsel-Stamford, CT) and Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) represented a Vermont-based attorney and firm that handled the sale of a Connecticut man’s second home in Vermont. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, which held that the Vermont-based attorney could not be brought into court in Connecticut because Connecticut’s long-arm statute could not provide personal jurisdiction over the Vermont defendants. The plaintiff, the girlfriend of the man whose property was sold, failed to demonstrate sufficient facts such that any of the sections of the long-arm statute could apply. Specifically, the Vermont firm did not transact business in Connecticut, enter into a contract in Connecticut, solicit business from Connecticut residents, derive substantial revenue from Connecticut, nor did they commit a tort in Connecticut. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action as to the Vermont attorneys.
Stephen P. Brown