WAM- Legal Forum, January 2003

LEGAL FORUM, By Gordon P. Gitlen, Esq.

WHEN IS A PRIOR OWNER RESPONSIBLE
FOR A PERSONAL INJURY?

A tenant in an apartment building filed a lawsuit claiming that she received an electric shock when she touched the rain gutter on the apartment building. Apparently, she was watering the plants and was standing in water at the time and claimed to receive an electrical injury. Through her attorney, she filed a personal injury lawsuit naming the current owner of the property, as well as the Edison Company who supplied the electricity to the building. Sometime thereafter, her attorney decided to also name in the lawsuit the prior owner of the property, even though the sale occurred approximately seven months prior to the date of the injury.

After discovery, depositions, etc., the plaintiff's attorney could not draw a connection, but would not voluntarily dismiss our client. We filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, by the court, thus ending our client's involvement in the litigation. We proved, to the satisfaction of the court, that there was no fraud on the part of our client, that there was no knowledge of a dangerous condition on the part of our client and that all prior work had been done to code, with permits, and by licensed contractors. Of course, had our client possessed some knowledge of a defect and failed to disclose this knowledge, there may have been liability; if our client maintained some management responsibilities for the subject property, there may have been some liability or had our client kept an ownership interest in the subject property, there may have been some liability. However, none of these events occurred and our client had no further connection with the subject property once the sale closed. In this case, the prior owner had absolutely no responsibility or liability to the "electrocuted" tenant for the claim of personal injury.

Of course, not all cases are as easily disposed of as set forth above. Take a look at the following story:

A Charlotte, NC, lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars and insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued…And won!

In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated, nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be an acceptable fire and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."

NOW FOR THE BEST PART… After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

This is a true story and was the First Place winner in the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.