Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Zimmer Kunz is pleased to announce that Dara DeCourcy, Joseph Selep and George Stewart have again been selected as Pennsylvania Super Lawyers© and Joseph Butcher, Greg Scheuring and Christian Wrabley have again been recognized as Pennsylvania Rising Stars. For Mr. Stewart and Mr. Selep, this is the seventh year in a row that they have […]
In Elk Run Coal Company, Inc. v. Canopius US Insurance, Inc., filed June 9, 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that very broad indemnity language sufficed to require a contracting trucker to indemnify Elk Run Coal Company for injuries to the trucker’s employee caused entirely by Elk Run’s negligence. The contract’s indemnity agreement […]
In Elk Run Coal Company, Inc. v. Canopius US Insurance, Inc., filed June 9, 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that very broad indemnity language sufficed to require a contracting trucker to indemnify Elk Run Coal Company for injuries to the trucker’s employee caused entirely by Elk Run’s negligence. The contract’s indemnity […]
West Virginia State Law Profile Updated By Zimmer Kunz Shareholders Stewart and DeCourcy
Shareholders George Stewart and Dara DeCourcy just completed overhauling our profile of West Virginia transportation-related tort law. The updated profile addresses West Virginia’s 2015 tort reform legislation and current case law. You can download a copy of the profile using the link, WV State Law Profile.
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (June 1, 2015), the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from making an employment decision based on an applicant’s religious practice, whether the employer has actual knowledge of the religious practice or not. Samantha […]
On May 26, 2015, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Politsopoulous held that the employee liability exclusion section of a commercial liability insurance policy did not apply to non-employer additional insureds. Specifically, the Court found the specific language of the policy to be dispositive in that it referred to “the insured” when […]
